The Professionalization of Instructional Leadership in the United States: Competing Values and Current Tensions1

Author(s):  
Patricia Burch
Author(s):  
Rose M. Ylimaki ◽  
David Gurr ◽  
Lejf Moos ◽  
Kasper Kofod ◽  
Lawrie Drysdale

Author(s):  
Erika Lietzan ◽  
Patricia J. Zettler

This chapter examines the regulation of medicines in the United States. The US scheme for achieving the primary goals of medical product regulation is largely federal, governed by the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and two provisions of the Public Health Service Act and administered by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), a federal executive branch agency within the US Department of Health and Human Services. Federal law generally requires research before a medical product enters the market, FDA authorization before market launch affirming that there is sufficient evidence of the product's safety and effectiveness, and continued monitoring and regulation after launch. These requirements and how they are implemented, however, reflect values and goals that, in some circumstances, can be in tension. The chapter then considers how the regulatory scheme for medicines seeks to reconcile these sometimes competing values and goals. It starts by describing what constitutes a medicine subject to FDA regulation and then explains how medicines reach the market, how the FDA and manufacturers assess and manage risks, and the incentives for innovation and rules for competition. The chapter also looks at innovative medical technologies that challenge the traditional US regulatory scheme, using those examples to explore the future of medicines regulation.


AERA Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. 233285842098617
Author(s):  
Morgaen L. Donaldson ◽  
Madeline Mavrogordato ◽  
Peter Youngs ◽  
Shaun Dougherty ◽  
Reem Al Ghanem

Almost every state in the United States has revamped its principal evaluation policies since 2009, yet we know little about how they are implemented. Based on interviews and document analysis in 21 small- and medium-sized school districts, we found that superintendents’ sensemaking shaped their implementation of policy. Drawing on their beliefs about principals and evaluation and their understanding of their district context, superintendents in lower performing districts reported that they complied with the processes specified in state principal evaluation policies but strayed from state guidelines regarding maintaining a focus on instructional leadership during evaluation. In contrast, superintendents of higher performing districts reported that they implemented evaluation processes loosely but adhered to their state’s policy emphasis on instructional leadership. Our findings raise questions about whether the implementation of principal evaluation policies disadvantages principals in lower performing districts. We thus caution against attaching high-stakes consequences such as incentive pay or sanctions to these policies.


2016 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 540-568 ◽  
Author(s):  
William R. Penuel ◽  
Caitlin C. Farrell ◽  
Anna-Ruth Allen ◽  
Yukie Toyama ◽  
Cynthia E. Coburn

This study investigated what research district leaders find useful. It draws on evidence from interviews and surveys of central office leaders in three large urban districts in the United States. We find that although leaders did report using research as federal policies intend—to select among curricula, programs, and interventions to adopt—the kinds of research district leaders find useful are not primarily peer-reviewed impact studies. Instead, research they find useful present frameworks and practical guidance in the form of books. Leaders also report using research to support their own professional learning, guide their instructional leadership activities, and monitor and support implementation of district-adopted programs and practices. These findings make the case that we need a broader understanding of the research that may be relevant for the multifaceted work of district leaders.


Author(s):  
A. Hakam ◽  
J.T. Gau ◽  
M.L. Grove ◽  
B.A. Evans ◽  
M. Shuman ◽  
...  

Prostate adenocarcinoma is the most common malignant tumor of men in the United States and is the third leading cause of death in men. Despite attempts at early detection, there will be 244,000 new cases and 44,000 deaths from the disease in the United States in 1995. Therapeutic progress against this disease is hindered by an incomplete understanding of prostate epithelial cell biology, the availability of human tissues for in vitro experimentation, slow dissemination of information between prostate cancer research teams and the increasing pressure to “ stretch” research dollars at the same time staff reductions are occurring.To meet these challenges, we have used the correlative microscopy (CM) and client/server (C/S) computing to increase productivity while decreasing costs. Critical elements of our program are as follows:1) Establishing the Western Pennsylvania Genitourinary (GU) Tissue Bank which includes >100 prostates from patients with prostate adenocarcinoma as well as >20 normal prostates from transplant organ donors.


Author(s):  
Vinod K. Berry ◽  
Xiao Zhang

In recent years it became apparent that we needed to improve productivity and efficiency in the Microscopy Laboratories in GE Plastics. It was realized that digital image acquisition, archiving, processing, analysis, and transmission over a network would be the best way to achieve this goal. Also, the capabilities of quantitative image analysis, image transmission etc. available with this approach would help us to increase our efficiency. Although the advantages of digital image acquisition, processing, archiving, etc. have been described and are being practiced in many SEM, laboratories, they have not been generally applied in microscopy laboratories (TEM, Optical, SEM and others) and impact on increased productivity has not been yet exploited as well.In order to attain our objective we have acquired a SEMICAPS imaging workstation for each of the GE Plastic sites in the United States. We have integrated the workstation with the microscopes and their peripherals as shown in Figure 1.


2001 ◽  
Vol 15 (01) ◽  
pp. 53-87 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Rehfeld

Every ten years, the United States “constructs” itself politically. On a decennial basis, U.S. Congressional districts are quite literally drawn, physically constructing political representation in the House of Representatives on the basis of where one lives. Why does the United States do it this way? What justifies domicile as the sole criteria of constituency construction? These are the questions raised in this article. Contrary to many contemporary understandings of representation at the founding, I argue that there were no principled reasons for using domicile as the method of organizing for political representation. Even in 1787, the Congressional district was expected to be far too large to map onto existing communities of interest. Instead, territory should be understood as forming a habit of mind for the founders, even while it was necessary to achieve other democratic aims of representative government.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document