|
        |
| |
| |
Public Affairs Update
AAUP’s survey of retirement policies shows increase in U.S. colleges
and universities offering incentives to retire . . . . The survey is a product
of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) Committee
on Retirement. An update of a 2000 study, the 2007 report investigates
how institutions might have changed their policies since 2000 to deal with
changing faculty demographics and other emerging issues. As faculty
members nationwide approach retirement age, institutions are using retirement
incentives and phased retirement to renew their faculties. Phased
retirement has faculty members work part time after relinquishing tenure,
allowing institutions to continue to draw on the expertise of long–time
professors. “The 2007 survey provides important new information on
the nature of college and university faculty retirement programs, on the
availability of health–insurance benefits for retirees and their spouses,
and on retirement policies for part–time faculty,” says Cornell University
economist Ronald G. Ehrenberg, a consultant to the AAUP’s retirement
committee and author of the 2000 report. “Academic institutions and their
faculty members can use the information provided by the survey to see
how their faculty benefit programs compare to those of their competitors,”
Ehrenberg adds. The 2007 report was written by Valerie Martin Conley
of Ohio University, a member of the retirement committee. The survey
was co–sponsored by the American Council on Education, the American
Association of Community Colleges, the American Association of State
Colleges and Universities, the College and University Professional Association
for Human Resources, and the National Association of College and
University Business Officers. The TIAA–CREF Institute and the Cornell
Higher Education Research Institute financed the survey. The sample
included 1,361 public and private doctoral–, masters–, bachelors–, and
two–year–degree–granting institutions, with a response rate of 42 percent.
Visit www.aaup.org/AAUP/issuesed/retirement/2007retsurv/default.htm for a copy of the report.
Urban Institute reports on gender gaps and gains in K–12 math and
reading . . . . This new report, Gender Gaps in Math and Reading Gains During
Elementary and High School by Race and Ethnicity, focuses on analyzing
the differences in math and reading test score growth rates by gender for
four different race and ethnic groups—white, black, Hispanic, and Asian
students—for six different time periods. The data cover both the earliest
years of education and the crucial years of adolescence. The report also
uses data bracketing of a non–schooling period to yield a more complete
picture of how gender gaps evolve over the course of early elementary and
high school years and how these trajectories differ by race and ethnicity.
The statistically significant results suggest that males learn more math and
females more reading during early elementary school and again during
high school. The report was written by Laura LoGerfo, Austin Nichols,
and Duncan Chaplin. The paper can be accessed at www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=411428.
Update on the National Children’s Study . . . . The National Children’s
Study is moving forward and stepping up preparations to recruit eligible
women and their families. The National Institute of Child Health
and Human Development at the National Institutes of Health issued a
Request for Proposals (RFP) in March to award contracts of 15 to 20 new
Study Centers. These Centers will manage operations in up to 30 study
locations in addition to those “Vanguard Centers” awarded in 2005 (see
November 2005 Footnotes, p. 3), but whose startup has been stalled by
federal budget shortfalls. Sociologist Barbara Entwisle, University of
North Carolina–Chapel Hill, is a Principal Investigator of one of these six
Vanguard Centers. “We are delighted about this next step in the Study’s
progress,” said National Children’s Study Director Peter Scheidt. “We
can now begin the true work of the Study, working with families and
communities to uncover the root causes of what makes children sick and
what keeps them healthy. This is a giant step forward for our children,”
he said. The study will recruit and enroll eligible participants across the
United States, and track them from before birth until age 21. This latest
RFP has been made possible through recent belated congressional action
to appropriate funds for fiscal year 2007. The National Children’s Study is
led by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the National
Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
and by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. More information is
at nationalchildrensstudy.gov.
New fact sheet on naturalization rate estimates . . . . The Office of Immigration
Statistics (OIS) has announced the release of Naturalization Rate
Estimates: Stock vs. Flow. The report compares stock and flow measures of
naturalization and discusses why immigrant naturalization rates differ
depending on the data source used. The fact sheet takes the two primary
data sets, U.S. Census Bureau’s decennial census and surveys and the
administrative records of the Department of Homeland Security. The
data sets are used to compute naturalization rates. The report explains
why these two data sources, however, may be quite different. The report
is available at www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/
ois_naturalizations_fs_2004.pdf.
|
|