Browsing by Author "McCorkle, Mac"

Now showing 1 - 5 of 5

Open Access
Can the Quilombo Model of Collective Land Titling Work in Rio’s Favelas?
(2016-06-21) Reist, Stephanie V
Due to their informality, the favelas of Rio de Janeiro are in a precarious position. Though the informal neighborhoods have long served as sites of affordable housing for Rio’s poorest residents, changes within in the city related to public security, mega-events, real estate speculation, and urban revitalization jeopardize their permanence. As one possible solution, this study, conducted for the client Catalytic Communities, investigated collective titling in favelas modeled after quilombos, territories recognized and titled by Brazilian federal law as patrimonies of black cultural traditions.
Open Access
Durham Tech Mobile Health Lab: Strategies and Recommendations for Enhancing the Delivery of Mobile Care Services in Durham and Orange Counties
(2021-05-03) Bennett, Michael
In 2020, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina awarded Durham Technical Community College a $1 million grant to launch a new mobile health lab. The program will deliver cross-disciplinary health education and outreach to Durham and Orange Counties, provide clinical training to student volunteers, and engage local populations in training and education to eliminate barriers to health access. This report will examine the strategies and best practices that Durham Tech should adopt and adapt for the operation of this new mobile health lab.
Open Access
Governing a Boomburb: Guiding Cary's Growth Into The Future
(2023-04-21) Hager, William
What lessons can Cary draw on from Boomburbs around the country to best navigate the governance challenges associated with this form of municipality? Boomburbs are municipalities which have a population of more than 100,000 people and which have grown at a double-digit rate for multiple decades yet remain only the second largest community in their metropolitan area. This report explores the above policy question by highlighting common demographic and governance characteristics of Boomburbs and identifying how Cary aligns with these descriptors. It then utilizes a qualitative research methodology informed by interviews with Boomburb council members and city managers to gather insights on Cary and four other comparable Boomburbs from across the country. This research revealed several common themes between Cary and its peer Boomburbs. Decisions from state legislatures altered political influences in elections within all communities. Several municipalities had well-tenured council bodies guiding their growth and success. Strategic planning and mechanisms to increase citizen engagement in government were common across Boomburbs. Cary stood apart from its fellow Boomburbs, however, by maintaining its identity as a “town” despite its leading growth rate. Cary included more partisan identifiers for current council members in online town materials than other case study locations. The town had the most tenured yet lowest paid town or city council of all five Boomburbs. Promoting pathways to leadership spanning from Cary’s citizen academy to the town council would increase the likelihood that new leaders are prepared to continue on Cary’s current level of excellence and foster greater and more diverse community engagement at higher levels of local government. Combining these pathways with strategies to expand professional development opportunities for government staff and utilize strategic management to establish a unified vision across the town would further fuel Cary’s future success as a Boomburb.
Open Access
State Leaders in Providing Common Core-Aligned Instructional Materials
(2014-04-18) Fago, Cassandra
The Education Trust (Ed Trust) is a non-profit organization whose mission is to promote academic achievement for all students at all levels nationwide. One of Ed Trust’s six main advocacy agenda items is support for college- and career-ready education standards in all states. As part of its commitment, Ed Trust supports state adoption of the Common Core State Standards (Common Core) to raise the bar for student achievement across the nation. Policy Questions (1) Which states can The Education Trust identify as leaders in providing instructional materials to support teachers in the transition to the Common Core State Standards? (2) What characteristics of the leader states’ efforts in providing Common Core-aligned instructional materials can promising states use as they develop Common Core-aligned curricula? Identifying Leader States Of the 45 states which have adopted the Common Core, only some of them have developed Common Core-aligned instructional materials for teachers at the state level. Among these participating states, the threshold criterion for a “leader” state in this study is development of Common Core-aligned instructional materials and making the materials available to teachers in their states. To determine which states have made the most progress in providing instructional materials for teachers, this project examines: the range of Common Core-aligned instructional materials provided in each state, the accessibility of materials, and differentiation of the materials for such special student populations as English Language Learners. The leader states are divided into three groups: Leader of the Pack states: New York and Tennessee Full Steam Ahead states: Colorado, Illinois, Maryland and Massachusetts Strong Start states: Delaware, Georgia and Kentucky Promising States Forty-five states have adopted the Common Core, and states are able to learn from one another during implementation. The leader states have learned valuable lessons which provide possible policies, strategies, and initiatives that “promising” states can use to support their teachers in the transition to the Common Core A promising state is a state with the beginning resources and political will to develop Common Core-aligned instruction materials for their teachers. Promising states have indicated interest in developing Common Core resources by planning for Common Core implementation in applications for Race to the Top grants or No Child Left Behind (NCLB) waivers. Promising States include: Louisiana North Carolina Pennsylvania New Jersey Ohio Rhode Island Recommendations for Promising States I recommend that promising states pursue the following strategies: (1) Partner with curriculum creators. Most state departments of education do not have the capacity, expertise, or time to create a comprehensive set of instructional materials by the 2014-2015 school year when teachers and students will be held accountable for their performance on the Common Core. In the past, most districts have purchased curriculum materials from independent companies specializing in curriculum creation. States can modify this practice by partnering with curriculum companies or non-profit education organizations to develop Common Core-aligned instructional materials. (2) Utilize additional sources of funding. Limited financial resources is a significant barrier for states working to create Common Core-aligned instructional materials. Fortunately, education is an area of emphasis for foundations looking to fund projects. States can access funds through such entities as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which prioritize Common Core implementation. (3) Establish “working groups” of state education experts to create instructional materials. Within every state, a group of experienced and knowledgeable educators can work together to develop instructional materials aligned to the Common Core. States can create working groups of teachers and administrators who can combine their knowledge of the Common Core, the needs of their students, and their instructional expertise. (4) Create resource-sharing spaces for educators to share Common Core-aligned instructional materials. A benefit of the Common Core is that teachers are able to share resources across schools, districts, and states, because they are teaching the same skills and concepts. States can encourage the practice of sharing Common Core-aligned materials by creating online spaces for teachers to post and search for ready-to-use instructional resources. (5) Build resources in stages. Almost every state included in this report developed their pool of Common Core-aligned instructional materials over time and built on previously created resources. States can purposefully plan the creation of instructional materials by phasing in resources and building upon previously created materials. (6) Encourage teachers to use resources from other states and organizations. Some states have not developed their own set of Common Core-aligned instructional materials for teachers because they lack the resources or are traditionally local-control states. States can take advantage of the common nature of the Common Core by utilizing quality standards-aligned materials created by other states or organizations.
Open Access
The Perplexing Policy Status of the Simpson-Bowles Fiscal Package: A Case Study Analysis
(2014-04-22) Tessier, Emma
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) is a bipartisan, non-profit, non-governmental organization committed to education and promotion of a responsible budget process. CRFB is currently working on the Moment of Truth Project promoting the Simpson-Bowles report from the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. In support of CRFB I have put together a report to (1) establish how the fiscal commission developed the Simpson-Bowles policy package, (2) understand how the media framed the package and how it affected public opinion, and (3) use John Kingdon’s garbage can model to question whether Simpson-Bowles has a policy future. Section I: A “Legislative” History on the Simpson-Bowles Package: In this section I trace the fiscal commission from its start in February 2010 through the final vote in December. I discuss the varied expectations for the commission, their structure and sources of policy ideas, how they negotiated with outside groups and commission members, the reasoning behind members’ votes, the immediate criticism Simpson-Bowles received, and what has changed since 2010. While this section doesn’t draw any conclusions, it analyzes where the policy ideas came from, discusses the different players who had a stake in the outcome, and highlights the key decisions and how they were made. Section II: The Media Framing of the Simpson-Bowles Package: The press often refers to Simpson-Bowles in broad, vague, or even misleading terms. This section discusses how the package was framed by the media and the general consensus among newspapers across the country. I look at editorials from regional newspapers and compare their content to coverage in the New York Times or Washington post. My analysis shows that Simpson-Bowles was received well by the media, and was lauded as “good government” and unlikely compromise. However, it also warns that by not educating the public on the content of the proposals in the package, the “good government” argument may break down. Section III: The Public Response to the Simpson-Bowles Package: In conjunction with the media analysis, I look at public polling data on Simpson-Bowles to measure the public’s response. The data help inform whether the discussion surrounding the package has caused a shift in overall public awareness for fiscal problems as well as the most effective ways of discussing particular elements of the package. For example, support for proposed changes in Social Security and Medicare were low, but when packaged with other ideas (such as closing tax loopholes) or qualified by protecting lower-income groups levels of support increased significantly. This section highlights the importance of question specificity when gauging public opinion. Section IV: The Simpson-Bowles Package & the Policy Stream: Are They Still Alive?: The public narrative, as seen in the media and public response, tells a mixed story. The current state, and future, of the Simpson-Bowles package appears uncertain at best. Nevertheless, there is reason to believe that the package is still viable. In this section I apply John Kingdon’s garbage can model to the Simpson-Bowles package, and show how the policy may still be alive. This model says that problems, policy ideas, and politics exist as three independent processes, but you don’t see real action until all three come together. Meanwhile, ideas are in the garbage can waiting until the right time. Today our fiscal problems still exist, and Simpson-Bowles may be the go-to policy plan, but the package has yet to earn the political endorsements needed to move it forward. Section V: Simpson-Bowles: Lessons Learned: • Simpson-Bowles lost traction because it lacked political support. In the future, support from Congressional leadership and especially the President would help the package. • The media generally support Simpson-Bowles as centrist and a meaningful compromise, but also have not educated the public on the content. The package’s critics may eventually break through the “good government” frame. As policy tradeoffs are introduced and discussed, support for the whole package increases. Simpson-Bowles needs to be discussed specifically and holistically.