ethanporcaro/eric-fulltext-meta huggingface dataset:
A Way Forward for Refugees: Findings from the WES Pilot Project
Author: World Education Services (WES)
Date: 2018-00-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: Foreign Countries,Refugees,Pilot Projects,Credentials,Immigrants,Qualifications,Academic Records,Nonprofit Organizations,Evaluation Methods,Program Evaluation,Partnerships in Education,Program Design,Eligibility

World Education Services (WES) is a non-profit organization with over 40 years of experience in assessing academic credentials from more than 200 countries and jurisdictions and 40,000 educational institutions. Because many refugees are unable to obtain verifiable documents, the assessment of their qualifications calls for a different approach than normally used. WES launched its refugee pilot project in July 2016 with the target of accepting 200 applications by the end of that year. This goal was achieved and surpassed, and WES accepted additional applicants until the project was paused in May 2017 for program evaluation. This report analyzes the first 205 individuals who applied before December 31, 2016, 95 percent of whom received a WES Alternative Credential Assessment of their academic qualifications. To validate its approach, WES issued credential evaluation reports to a select number of Syrian refugees and conducted a thorough evaluation of the pilot program itself. WES recruited applicants by working through trusted referral partners who could screen them for program eligibility, explain the purpose of an assessment, and guide them through the process. Beyond testing assumptions and methods, WES also hoped to learn more about its refugee applicants, including their aspirations, intentions, and needs related to using the assessment to achieve their goals. This report describes the various elements of the project and includes analysis of the data to provide context for specific recommendations and next steps for this project. [For the executive summary, see ED586187.]
Educational Technologies and Teacher Autonomy. BCTF Research Report. 2017-TC-02
Author: British Columbia Teachers' Federation (BCTF) (Canada)
Date: 2018-02-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: Foreign Countries,Educational Technology,Information Technology,Professional Autonomy,Academic Standards,Accountability,Individualized Instruction,Privatization,Data,Neoliberalism,Politics of Education

Following recent analysis by &quot;We The Educators&quot;, a joint project of the Alberta Teachers' Association, the Canadian Teachers' Federation and Education International, the global proliferation of education technologies is inseparable from &quot;the privatisation and standardization of education occurring around the world&quot; (We The Educators, 2017, p. 1). Drawing on interdisciplinary research, the report argues that there are four key areas that have the potential to profoundly shape the impact that educational technologies have on teaching and learning. These are: &quot;standardization, personalization, privatisation and the datafication of learning&quot;. Taken together, the concern is that educational technologies can contribute to the deprofessionalization of teaching and profoundly impact teacher autonomy. The rest of this report positions these concepts within existing British Columbia Teachers' Federation BCTF research and position statements, and raises key questions as to how Information and Community Technology &quot;ICT-enabled learning environments&quot; can enhance, rather than hinder, the fundamental goals of public education.
Career Prospects and Outcomes of U.S.-Educated International Students: Improving Services, Bolstering Success. Report 09
Author: Loo, Bryce
Date: 2017-10-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: Employment Potential,Outcomes of Education,Foreign Students,College Students,College Graduates,Alumni,Occupational Aspiration,Decision Making,Education Work Relationship,Educational Attitudes,Credentials,Work Experience Programs,Employment Practices,Career Counseling,Job Search Methods,Employment Services,Student Personnel Services,Work Experience

In order to provide institutions with more insight into student experiences and perspectives on their careers and the preparation they received on campus--and to promote discussions about how such students' might be better served--the research team at World Education Services (WES) conducted a survey of both current international students and international alumni of U.S. higher education institutions. In June 2017, researchers surveyed some 2,162 former WES applicants for foreign credential evaluation, including 1,067 current students and 1,095 alumni. Researchers set out to answer three main questions: (1) What are the career aspirations of international students and international alumni of U.S. higher education institutions (HEIs), and how do those influence their decision to study in the United States?; (2) What are the career outcomes of international alumni who have graduated from U.S. institutions?; and (3) How can international students' experiences with career service offices and related support services on U.S. campuses be improved? Key findings include: (1) The vast majority of both current international students and international alumni believe that their U.S. education was a good investment; (2) International students say that credential recognition outside of the United States was one factor they considered when deciding to study in the U.S.; (3) Overall, employment outcomes for alumni are good, but there are areas that could use improvement; (4) Post-graduation work-training programs in the United States, for instance Optional Practical Training (OPT) and Academic Training, were viewed positively; (5) Alumni in the U.S. use a variety of forms of work authorization, despite the challenges in obtaining work permits. Others leave due to difficulty obtaining work permits; (6) Usage of and satisfaction with career services offices was uneven; and (7) Most international students came to the U.S. with at least some experience and gained more while studying.
Funding Fairness for Adult Learners. A Brief to the BC Education Funding Model Review from the British Columbia Teachers&apos; Federation
Date: 2018-04-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Foreign Countries,Adult Students,Adult Learning,Educational Finance,Financial Support,Tuition,Adult Basic Education,Resource Allocation,Canada Natives,Educational Equity (Finance),Adult Education

Last August, teachers wholeheartedly welcomed Minister Fleming's announcement that tuition fees for adult learners, which had posed such a significant barrier to thousands of students, would be eliminated. As the Minister pointed out when making the announcement, &quot;Tuition fees on Adult Basic Education (ABE) and English Language Learning (ELL) programs shut people out. British Columbia is re-opening those doors. Now any British Columbian can go back to school free of charge, upgrade their skills, and build a better life for themselves and their families.&quot; And now that these doors have rightfully re-opened and additional revenue from unjust tuition fees is no longer available, British Columbia must ensure that the Ministry provides resources for adult learners that are adequate to meet their learning needs. One of the first steps to ensuring vibrant and sustainable adult education in British Columbia's public education system is ensuring equitable funding for adult learners. The current funding formula underfunds adult students relative to their school-age peers. While the basic funding amount for a school-age full-time equivalent (FTE) student is $7,423 in 2018--19, it is just $4,696 for an FTE adult learning student-a gap of nearly 37%. Yet adult learners have the same, if sometimes not greater, learning needs as their school-age counterparts. If British Columbia wants them to succeed within the education system, they must be ensured that they are furnished with the resources to make this possible. Now that the decision to dispense with tuition fees has been made, teachers recommend that the independent panel entrusted with reviewing British Columbia's education funding formula ensure that adult education programs are funded on par with K-12 programs and that funding respond to unique adult education needs, including adding First Peoples and other similar courses to the list of funded courses, and including funding for preparation time as well as professional and curricular development.
Improving the International Student Experience: Implications for Recruitment and Support. Report 08
Author: Roy, Megha
Date: 2016-10-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: College Students,Foreign Students,Student Experience,Student Recruitment,Educational Quality,Occupational Aspiration,Student Satisfaction,Social Networks,Expectation,Student Personnel Services,Employment Services,College Housing,Student Financial Aid,Scholarships,Student Motivation,Study Abroad,School Holding Power,Comparative Analysis

For higher education personnel who serve international students, understanding the student experience--and doing so holistically--is critical. To shed light on how institutions can better meet a range of needs among students from different parts of the globe, the research team at World Education Services (WES) conducted a study of international students' experiences at U.S. institutions. In May 2016, researchers surveyed some 4,683 WES former applicants for foreign credential evaluation. The vast majority were either current students at U.S. institutions, or graduates from as far back as 2010. Key findings include: (1) International students are seeking high quality programs that can help them kickstart their careers; (2) Not all international student groups have the same experience of U.S. education; (3) International students are satisfied with some aspects of their academic experience, but research opportunities are lacking; (4) International students who are satisfied and view their education as a good investment are often willing brand ambassadors; (5) International students face challenges in building strong social networks; and (6) Key services and supports for international students can be improved.
The University of North Carolina Retention &amp; Graduation Report, 2012-13
Author: University of North Carolina General Administration (UNC-GA)
Date: 2014-02-00
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: Academic Persistence,Graduation Rate,Higher Education,Time to Degree,College Transfer Students,Two Year College Students,Bachelors Degrees,College Freshmen,Undergraduate Students,Associate Degrees,Full Time Students,College Seniors,School Holding Power

This report provides system-level graduation and retention rates for the University of North Carolina (UNC), with campus-level and corresponding peer benchmarks appended. Where possible, corresponding national rates are reported as well. In all measures, UNC surpasses these national rates. Traditional definitions for graduation and retention rates reflect those used by the US Department of Education's Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). These familiar four- and six-year graduation rates focus on the degree completion of first-time, full-time freshmen cohorts who begin college in the fall semester. Because of this, not all undergraduates are counted in traditional IPEDS-reported measures. Excluded from these measures are part-time freshmen, students who transfer among institutions, and those enrolling in the spring semester. The IPEDS measures also prove punitive for institutions in which students do not remain continuously enrolled (e.g., military serving institutions). Due to the importance of transfer students to UNC's five year strategic plan, the traditional IPEDS measures are supplemented with indicators that capture transfer student success, enrollment, and graduation rates across institutions. For the first time this year, the report provides analysis of results from the UNC Graduating Senior Survey, which provides some explanations of factors that extend students' time-to-degree beyond four years. [For the previous year's report, see ED586054.]
The University of North Carolina Retention &amp; Graduation Report, 2013-2014. Revised
Author: University of North Carolina General Administration (UNC-GA)
Date: 2015-02-00
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: Academic Persistence,Graduation Rate,Higher Education,Time to Degree,College Transfer Students,Two Year College Students,Bachelors Degrees,College Freshmen,Undergraduate Students,Associate Degrees,Full Time Students,College Seniors,School Holding Power

This report provides system-level graduation and retention rates for the University of North Carolina (UNC), with campus-level and corresponding peer benchmarks appended. Where possible, corresponding national rates are reported as well. In nearly all measures, UNC surpasses these national rates. Measuring rates of student retention and graduation are important indicators of success at institutions of higher education. Many of these metrics reflect definitions developed by the US Department of Education's Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). These commonly used four- and six-year graduation rates exclusively refer to the degree completion of first-time, full-time freshmen cohorts who begin college in the fall semester. Many students attending UNC institutions, such as transfer and part-time students, are not included in these IPEDS cohorts and their exclusion represents a significant number of students. This report presents retention and graduation data using a variety of metrics to offer a fuller picture of student success across the UNC system. [For the previous year's report, see ED586194.]
The University of North Carolina Undergraduate Retention &amp; Graduation Report, 2014-15
Author: University of North Carolina General Administration (UNC-GA)
Date: 2016-04-00
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: Gender Differences,Age Differences,Socioeconomic Influences,Academic Persistence,Graduation Rate,Higher Education,Time to Degree,College Transfer Students,Two Year College Students,Bachelors Degrees,College Freshmen,Undergraduate Students,Associate Degrees,Full Time Students,College Seniors,Racial Differences,School Holding Power

This report provides system-level graduation and retention rates for the University of North Carolina (UNC), with campus-level and corresponding peer benchmarks appended. Where possible, corresponding national rates are reported as well. In nearly all measures, UNC surpasses these national rates. In addition to overall graduation rates, this report examines variations in graduation rates by race, Pell grant status (a proxy used to indicate low income), and gender. Additionally, age groups are combined with race to compare racial representation in UNC graduates to the general North Carolina population. Measuring rates of student retention and graduation are important indicators of success at institutions of higher education. Commonly used measures of student success utilize indicators from the US Department of Education's Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) for first-time, full-time freshmen who enter in the fall semester. Their widespread use enables institutions to benchmark student achievement against national trends and peer institutions. Despite frequent use of these data, IPEDS excludes transfer students, part-time students, and students entering in the spring semester. These excluded students represent slightly more than one-third of the 2015 UNC undergraduate student population. The IPEDS metric gives no credit to the institution from which a student first enrolled if a student transfers and graduates at another institution. Because of the significant impact transfer and part-time students have at all UNC institutions, UNC General Administration reports alternative measures of success to the UNC Board of Governors and the public in its annual &quot;Retention and Graduation Report.&quot; [For the previous year's report, see ED586196.]
Quality of Assessment in Vocational Education and Training -- Discussion Paper
Author: Australian Government Department of Education and Training
Date: 2016-01-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: Foreign Countries,Vocational Education,Evaluation Methods,Student Evaluation,Employment Qualifications,Job Skills,Evaluators,Standards,Stakeholders,Attitude Measures,Educational Change,Teacher Qualifications,Government Role,Professional Associations,Industry,Teacher Certification

Quality outcomes from vocational education and training (VET) are fundamental to ensuring a skilled workforce and supporting a productive economy. In a competency-based training system, assessment is the gatekeeper for quality. Audits undertaken by the Australian Skills and Quality Authority (ASQA) have identified concerns with compliance against the assessment requirements of the Standards for Registered Training Organizations (RTOs) 2015 (Standards for RTOs). ASQA strategic reviews, including into aged and community care, early childhood education and care, equine programs and security training industries, highlighted assessment as an area requiring more attention if the quality of training is to improve. In response to concerns about assessment, and to ensure high-quality within the system, the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) Industry and Skills Council agreed that further reform options be developed to improve the quality of assessment of student training outcomes and enhance confidence in the VET sector. Specifically, the Industry and Skills Council agreed to explore reform options to support the following principles: (1) Graduates have the required competencies for the job role and there is consistency across RTOs in the quality of assessment; (2) Trainers and assessors have the capability to assess appropriately; (3) Assessment meets the standard set by industry; and (4) The regulator has the capacity to effectively regulate assessment practices and outcomes and take appropriate action. The discussion paper sought stakeholder views on further specific reforms that may ensure the existing reforms that could generate the intended impact and are not held back by ongoing concerns over RTO compliance with assessment requirements. The appendices are included.
Final Report--Improving Retention, Completion and Success in Higher Education. Higher Education Standards Panel
Author: Australian Government Department of Education and Training
Date: 2017-00-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: Foreign Countries,Student Attrition,Higher Education,College Students,Dropouts,College Admission,Educational Quality,Reputation,Educational Improvement,School Holding Power,Academic Persistence,Graduation,Best Practices,Accountability,Standards,Expectation,Student Personnel Services

In September 2016, following the release of 2015 student data by the Department of Education and Training (the department), media reports suggested that high attrition rates are symptomatic of poor admission standards; the lower a student's Australian Tertiary Admission Rank (ATAR) the greater the risk of non-completion; and as a result of the demand driven system, higher student numbers are leading to greater numbers of student drop-outs. The Higher Education Standards Panel (the Panel) argued in its November 2016 report, &quot;Improving the Transparency of Higher Education Admissions&quot; (see ED583548), that this media coverage was alarmist. In response to the Panel's report, the Minister for Education and Training, Senator the Honorable Simon Birmingham asked the Panel to examine Australian higher education completion and attrition to ensure that students have the best chance of successfully completing their enrolled units, courses and qualifications. This final report of the Panel explains how the examination of retention, completion and success in higher education came about, discussing what the higher education sector is saying about factors that impact on these issues. In this report, the Panel notes there is no immediate crisis in higher education, although members are concerned about the imbalance of attrition rates between a small number of institutions and between external and internal or mixed modes of educational delivery. The Panel makes six recommendations on how Australia can further build on its efforts to support students to succeed in higher education: (1) Expectations of completion in the current context; (2) Supporting students to make the right choices; (3) Supporting students to complete their studies; (4) Sharing best practices; (5) Clarifying definitions and enhancing transparency; and (6) Accountability and regulation.
How to Obtain Authentic International Academic Credentials
Author: World Education Services (WES)
Date: 2017-06-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Foreign Students,Admission Criteria,Student Records,Documentation,Credentials,Student Mobility,Academic Records,Audits (Verification),College Students,College Admission,Deception

The most important step in evaluating documents for international student admissions is ensuring the authenticity of educational credentials. This article shares the practices and experiences of World Education Services (WES) in obtaining valid international academic credentials. Since WES published &quot;Forged Educational Credentials: A Sorry Tale&quot; some 30 years ago, a great deal has changed. International student mobility has grown by leaps and bounds and now, through the Internet, and there is much greater access to information on foreign educational systems, institutions and programs. Furthermore, electronic communication allows fast, efficient correspondence with academic institutions anywhere in the world. This article examines: (1) How to Obtain Authentic International Academic Credentials, including what constitutes an official transcript; a systematic approach; and how to recognize international educational credentials; (2) Setting Up-to-Date Document Requirements; (3) How to Verify the Authenticity of Documents that Were Not Received Directly from an Institution, including sending documents for verification; acceptable verifications of authenticity; how long verification takes; verification fees; translations; and documents in English; and (4) How to Detect Fraudulent Documents, including forgeries and altered documents; degree/diploma mills; and additional resources.