ethanporcaro/eric-fulltext-meta huggingface dataset:
Supplemental Educational Services &quot;Non-Regulatory Guidance&quot; [2009]
Author: Department of Education (ED)
Date: 2009-01-14
Type: Guides - Non-Classroom
Subjects: Supplementary Education,State Departments of Education,School Districts,Federal Legislation,Educational Legislation,Elementary Secondary Education,Responsibility,Educational Finance,Financial Support

Supplemental educational services (SES) are additional academic instruction designed to increase the academic achievement of students in schools in need of improvement. These services may include academic assistance such as tutoring, remediation and other educational interventions, provided that such approaches are consistent with the content and instruction used by the local educational agency (LEA) and are aligned with the State's academic content standards. Supplemental educational services must be provided outside of the regular school day. Supplemental educational services must be high quality, research-based, and specifically designed to increase student academic achievement [Section 1116(e)(12)(C)]. This guidance updates and expands upon the SES Guidance that the Department released on June 13, 2005. It includes a number of new and modified questions that address issues related to the Title I regulations released in October 2008 (hereafter referred to as the 2008 Title I regulations), as well as other major policy guidance the Department has issued since 2005. Responses to other questions are revised to make them clearer or more responsive to issues based on experience gained from the implementation of the Title I SES provisions. The following are appended: (1) Definitions; (2) Sample Parent Notification Letter on Supplemental Educational; and (3) Flowchart: Requirements and Responsibilities for Meeting the 20 Percent Obligation. [For the 2005 document, see ED485740.]
Mobility. Snapshot™ Report, Spring 2014
Author: National Student Clearinghouse Research Center
Date: 2014-00-00
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: Student Mobility,Enrollment Trends,Population Groups,Statistical Distributions,Postsecondary Education,College Role,Age Differences,Gender Differences,Tables (Data),College Students,Trend Analysis

Just over 9% of all students attended more than one institution during the 2012-13 academic year. In each year studied, nearly three-fourths of all mobile students had at least one enrollment at a 2-year public institution. In each of the included years, students in the 20 and under age group had the highest mobility rates, followed by students in the &gt;20 to 24 age group. In each of the years studied, the percentage of women attending more than one institution within a single year was one and a quarter percentage points higher than the rate for men. The following charts are presented in this report: (1) Postsecondary Student Mobility Rate: 2011-2013 (by sector of earliest enrollment within academic year); (2) Distribution of Mobile Students by Sector Combinations; (3) Mobility Trend by Age Group: 2011-2013; and (4) Mobility Trend by Gender: 2011-2013.
Introduction to the Graduation Tracking System (GTS)
Author: Alabama Department of Education
Date: 2011-07-00
Type: Guides - Non-Classroom
Subjects: Guides,Computer Software,Information Management,Student Records,Technology Uses in Education,Progress Monitoring,At Risk Students,Reports,Intervention,Training,Professional Development,Teamwork,Role,Data Collection,Alignment (Education),Worksheets,Graduation,Attendance Patterns,Student Behavior,Academic Achievement,High Schools

This guide is a training and supportive tool for use by local education agencies (LEAs) in the state of Alabama that are utilizing the Science, Technology and Innovation (STI) Information-INow-INFocus information system software. The Graduation Tracking System (GTS) utilizes existing STI technology to capture student information pertaining to attendance, behavior, and course performance data as &quot;high yield&quot; indicators. This training is designed to provide LEAs with the capability to: (1) use existing STI technology to establish an early warning system to identify which students are on-track to graduate and which students are off-track to graduate and most likely to dropout; and (2) design a process for analyzing GTS reports and for aligning interventions/resources that provide support for off-track students. The training module outlines a six-step implementation process that includes recommendations from the National High School Center at the American Institute for Research on how to effectively implement an early warning tracking system. Worksheets and a glossary are included.
Strengthening Developmental Education Reforms: Evidence on Implementation Efforts from the Scaling Innovation Project. CCRC Working Paper No. 61
Author: Edgecombe, Nikki
Date: 2013-06-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: Developmental Programs,Educational Change,Educational Innovation,Evidence,Program Implementation,Trend Analysis,Adoption (Ideas),Instructional Innovation,Qualitative Research,Curriculum Development,Course Organization,Motivation,Sustainability,Intervention,Change Strategies,Performance Factors,Educational Diagnosis,Selection Criteria,Educational Practices,Program Evaluation,Program Development,Program Administration,College Programs,Semi Structured Interviews

In this paper, the authors draw on empirical data from CCRC's Scaling Innovation project to examine trends in developmental education instructional reform and outline a framework for reform adoption and adaptation. The paper's findings are based on two qualitative data sources: a scan of developmental education reforms that involved changes to curricula, course structure, and/or pedagogy; and fieldwork conducted at 11 colleges working to replicate high-potential instructional innovations developed at other colleges. The data suggest that colleges tend to enact developmental education reforms in ways that may unintentionally undermine their potential benefits. The authors present a framework for engaging practitioners in activities that will increase the impact of their developmental education reforms while strengthening institutional capacity. Appended are: (1) Scaling Innovation Partner Programs; and (2) Methods.
Why Students Do Not Prepare for Math Placement Exams: Student Perspectives. CCRC Research Brief. Number 57
Author: Fay, Maggie P.
Date: 2013-12-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: Student Surveys,Developmental Studies Programs,Remedial Mathematics,Two Year College Students,Community Colleges,Test Preparation,Misconceptions,Student Placement,Knowledge Level,Mathematics Skills,Self Esteem

Drawn from surveys completed by 122 students enrolled in developmental math at four community colleges and from seven student focus groups with a total of 34 developmental math students at those same colleges, this research brief illuminates student experiences with and perspectives on the math assessment and placement process. Findings suggest that many students who go on to enroll in developmental math are unlikely to prepare for the math placement exam, although most students know ahead of time that they are required to take the exam and many colleges make test preparation materials available. Lack of preparation may undermine students' exam performance and negatively affect the accuracy of their placement. We identify four interconnected reasons why students tend to not prepare for the exam: (1) misperceptions about the stakes of the assessment and placement process, (2) lack of knowledge about preparation materials, (3) misunderstandings about why and how to prepare for a college placement exam, and (4) a deep lack of math confidence. The brief concludes with recommendations for colleges. [This brief is a product of CCRC's Analysis of Statewide Developmental Education Reform (ASDER) research project, which is funded by the Bill &amp; Melinda Gates Foundation.]
2014 Native Youth Report
Author: Executive Office of the President
Date: 2014-12-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: American Indians,At Risk Persons,Public Policy,Access to Education,Equal Education,Racial Bias,American Indian Education,Federal Government,United States History,American Indian History,Educational Policy,Poverty,Educational Attainment,Academic Achievement,Achievement Gap,Socioeconomic Influences,Alaska Natives

In June 2014, President Obama embarked on his first presidential visit to Indian Country, where he and Mrs. Obama witnessed the tale of two Americas. Standing Rock Reservation, like many others, faces myriad social, economic, and educational problems. Together, those problems are coalescing into a crisis for our most vulnerable population--Native youth. The specific struggles that Native youth face often go unmentioned in our nation's discussions about America's children, and that has to change. In their visit to Standing Rock, President and Mrs. Obama met with a group of Native youth, who courageously shared their stories of struggle and triumph. After hearing their stories, President Obama challenged his Administration to do more and do better for the young people of Indian Country. This report summarizes the nature and effect of misguided federal policies on Native children historically, with a particular focus on education. It then examines the breadth of negative consequences, including poor health, education, and employment outcomes, which are the legacy of these past policies. Next, this report describes the education systems currently serving Native youth and focuses on some root causes of the persistent educational disparities identified in the prior section. Finally, this report proposes some broad recommendations on opportunities for tribes to engage with other governmental entities and the private and nonprofit sectors to strengthen ladders of opportunity for youth and to help rebuild more prosperous, resilient tribal nations. In doing so, this report identifies areas where promising work is already taking place and where more work is needed.
Reshaping the College Transition: Early College Readiness Assessments and Transition Curricula in Four States. A State Policy Report
Author: Barnett, Elisabeth A.
Date: 2013-11-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: Interviews,Stakeholders,College Readiness,Transitional Programs,Program Development,Program Implementation,College School Cooperation,Alignment (Education),Program Design,Governance,Accountability,Program Effectiveness,Standardized Tests,College Entrance Examinations,Common Core State Standards

Based largely on interviews with stakeholders in California, New York, Tennessee, and West Virginia, this report describes how these states have established initiatives related to early college readiness assessments and transition curricula. It then compares the development of these interventions across states and identifies factors that have facilitated or hindered their implementation. Findings suggest that strong collaboration between the K-12 and higher education sectors in developing such initiatives is essential for ensuring that the skills and knowledge taught and assessed in high school are well-aligned with those needed for success in college. What is more, program designers need to carefully consider competing priorities concerning initiative goals, populations served, and course content. The study also suggests that state-level commitment to improving college readiness in the form of legislation may be helpful in building support and momentum.
The Transformed Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC)
Author: Office for Civil Rights (DHHS)
Date: 2012-03-00
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: Civil Rights,Data Collection,Educational Assessment,Educational Indicators,Achievement Gap,Discipline,Career Readiness,College Readiness,Teacher Qualifications,Racial Differences,Gender Differences,Special Needs Students,Educational Opportunities,Teacher Salaries,Teacher Attendance

Since 1968, the Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) has collected data on key education and civil rights issues in our nation's public schools for use by the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR), other Department offices, other federal agencies, and by policymakers and researchers outside of the Department. The CRDC has generally been collected biennially from school districts in each of the 50 states plus the District of Columbia. In this summary report &quot;Revealing New Truths About Our Nation's Schools&quot; the CRDC reveals new truths about the journey America's young people take from prekindergarten through high school graduation. It also shines a new spotlight on whether our schools are providing the opportunity for all our students to be prepared to compete in the 21st Century global economy. Throughout this document are examples of success stories illuminated by the CRDC data--schools and districts that are making real progress in specific areas to close opportunity gaps, and K-12 schools and districts that are defying trends in pursuit of excellence.
The Nations Report Card: South Dakota Grade 4 and 8 Public Schools. State Reading 2013
Author: National Center for Education Statistics (ED)
Date: 2013-00-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: National Competency Tests,Public Schools,Grade 4,Grade 8,Reading Achievement,Reading Tests,Scores,Disabilities,English Language Learners,Elementary School Students,Middle School Students,Comparative Analysis,Racial Differences,Gender Differences,Low Income Students,Rural Urban Differences,School Location,Parent Background,Educational Attainment

This report provides selected results for South Dakota's public school students at grades 4 and 8 from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) assessment in reading. Results are reported by average scale scores and by achievement levels (Basic, Proficient, and Advanced). Key findings in grade 4 include: (1) Grade 4: In 2013, the average reading score for fourth-grade students in South Dakota was 218. This was lower than that for the nation's public schools (221); (2) The average score for students in South Dakota in 2013 (218) was lower than that in 2003 (222) and was not significantly different from that in 2011 (220); (3) In 2013, the percentage of students in South Dakota who performed at or above Proficient was 32 percent. This was not significantly different from that for the nation's public schools (34 percent); (4) The percentage of students in South Dakota who performed at or above Proficient in 2013 (32 percent) was not significantly different from that in 2003 (33 percent) and in 2011 (31 percent); (5) In 2013, the percentage of students in South Dakota who performed at or above Basic was 66 percent. This was not significantly different from that for the nation's public schools (67 percent); and (6) The percentage of students in South Dakota who performed at or above Basic in 2013 (66 percent) was not significantly different from that in 2003 (69 percent) and in 2011 (69 percent). Key findings in grade 8 include: (1) In 2013, the average reading score for eighth-grade students in South Dakota was 268. This was higher than that for the nation's public schools (266); (2) The average score for students in South Dakota in 2013 (268) was not significantly different from that in 2003 (270) and was not significantly different from that in 2011 (269); (3) In 2013, the percentage of students in South Dakota who performed at or above Proficient was 36 percent. This was not significantly different from that for the nation's public schools (34 percent); (4) The percentage of students in South Dakota who performed at or above Proficient in 2013 (36 percent) was not significantly different from that in 2003 (39 percent) and in 2011 (35 percent); (5) In 2013, the percentage of students in South Dakota who performed at or above Basic was 81 percent. This was greater than that for the nation's public schools (77 percent); ad (6) The percentage of students in South Dakota who performed at or above Basic in 2013 (81 percent) was not significantly different from that in 2003 (82 percent) and in 2011 (83 percent).
Documentation to the NCES Common Core of Data Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey: School Year 2010-11. Version Provisional 2a. NCES 2012-338rev
Author: Keaton, Patrick
Date: 2012-09-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Elementary Secondary Education,Data Collection,National Surveys,Public Schools,Institutional Characteristics,Student Characteristics,Records (Forms),Tables (Data)

The Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe file includes data for the following variables: NCES school ID number, state school ID number, name of the school, name of the agency that operates the school, mailing address, physical location address, phone number, school type, operational status, locale code, latitude, longitude, county number, county name, full-time-equivalent (FTE) classroom teacher count, low/high grade span offered, Congressional district code, school level, free lunch eligible students, reduced-price lunch eligible students, total free and reduced-price lunch eligible, and student totals and detail (by grade, by race/ethnicity, and by sex). The file also contains flags indicating whether a school is Title I eligible, schoolwide Title I eligible, a magnet school, a charter school, a shared time school, or a Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) school, along with which grades are offered at the school and if the school was reconstituted due to Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) reasons. The remainder of this document contains a user's guide and four appendices: (1) Record Layout for the Common Core of Data Local Education School Universe Survey: School Year 2010-11; (2) Value Distribution, Field Frequencies, and Data Tables for the Common Core of Data Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey: School Year 2010-11; (3) Glossary for the Common Core of Data: School Year 2010-11 and (4) State Notes for the Common Core of Data: School Year 2010-11.
Documentation to the NCES Common Core of Data Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey: School Year 2011-12. Provisional Version 1a. NCES 2014-100
Author: Keaton, Patrick
Date: 2013-12-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Elementary Secondary Education,Data Collection,National Surveys,Public Schools,Institutional Characteristics,Student Characteristics,Records (Forms),Tables (Data)

The documentation for this provisional version 1a file of the National Center for Education Statistics' (NCES) Common Core of Data (CCD) Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey for SY 2011-12, contains a brief description of the data collection, along with information required to understand and access the data file. The SY 2011-12 Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe file provides a directory of all schools that provide free public elementary and secondary education and characteristics of each school, including mailing address, location information, and geographic codes. The school universe file contains both categorical variables such as operational status and school type that describe the school as well as aggregated demographic variables such as counts of students attending the school by grade, race ethnicity and gender and the number of teachers. The school universe data are also useful to (1) chief officers of state education agencies, (2) policymakers in the executive and legislative branches of federal and state governments, (3) education policy and public policy researchers, (4) the press, and (5) citizens interested in information about public schools. The remainder of this document contains a user's guide and four appendices: (1) Record Layout for the Common Core of Data Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey: School Year 2011-12; (2) Value Distribution, Field Frequencies, and Data Tables for the Common Core of Data Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey: School Year 2011-12; (3) Glossary for the Common Core of Data: School Year 2011-12 and (4) State Notes for the Common Core of Data: School Year 2011-12.
Achieve &amp; the American Diploma Project Network. Updated April 2012
Author: Achieve, Inc.
Date: 2012-04-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Educational Change,College Readiness,Change Strategies,Interstate Programs,Organizational Objectives,Educational Improvement,Academic Standards,Technical Assistance

At the 1996 National Education Summit, a bipartisan group of governors and corporate leaders decided to create and lead an organization dedicated to supporting standards-based education reform efforts across the states. To do so, they formed Achieve as an independent, bi-partisan, non-profit education reform organization. This unique perspective has enabled Achieve to set a bold and visionary agenda over the past 15 years. To make college and career readiness a priority in the states, Achieve launched the American Diploma Project (ADP) Network in 2005. Starting with only a handful of states, the Network has now grown to include 35 states educating 85 percent of all U.S. public school students. This paper discusses how Achieve supports ADP Network states through multi-state convenings, regular Network-wide communications, and on-the-ground support. While an impressive amount of progress has been made in the 15 years since Achieve was founded, the reform movement is at a critical juncture where translating good policy into practice will be essential to getting results. To that end, Achieve will focus on: (1) Common Core State Standards Implementation; (2) Next Generation Science Standards; (3) Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC); and (4) Advancing the College and Career Ready Agenda.
ESEA Flexibility. Updated
Author: Department of Education (ED)
Date: 2012-06-07
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Federal Legislation,Educational Legislation,Elementary Secondary Education,Educational Change,State Agencies,Compliance (Legal),Definitions,Academic Achievement,Educational Quality,Teacher Effectiveness,College Readiness,Career Readiness,Accountability,School Districts,Program Implementation,Program Evaluation,Scheduling,Peer Evaluation,Educational Improvement,Student Improvement,Teacher Evaluation,Teacher Improvement,Disadvantaged Schools

In order to move forward with State and local reforms designed to improve academic achievement and increase the quality of instruction for all students in a manner that was not originally contemplated by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), a State educational agency (SEA) may request flexibility, on its own behalf and on behalf of its local educational agencies (LEAs), through waivers of ten provisions of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) and their associated regulatory, administrative, and reporting requirements. In order to receive this flexibility, an SEA must meet the principles described in the next section. Terms that are defined in the Definitions section of this document are in bold type the first time they appear. This document was originally issued on September 23, 2011. It has been updated to include two optional waivers that have been added to ESEA flexibility since that time and to reflect the implementation timeline for an SEA that requests this flexibility at the beginning of the 2012-2013 school year.