ethanporcaro/eric-fulltext-meta huggingface dataset:
Primary Funding Model. 50-State Comparison: K-12 and Special Education Funding
Author: Education Commission of the States
Date: 2021-10-00
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: Educational Finance,State Policy,Educational Policy,State Legislation,Special Education,Elementary Secondary Education,Funding Formulas,Resource Allocation,School Taxes

Across all 50 states, there are different ways in which states allocate K-12 and special education funding to districts. Education Commission of the States has collected information on states' primary funding models, base per-student funding amounts, student attendance count methods, and funding for special education, English language learners, students from low-income backgrounds, gifted and talented, and small schools. This document is part of the &quot;50-State Comparison: K-12 and Special Education Funding.&quot; It provides details on states' primary funding models. States provide money to school districts to cover basic costs of education, such as teacher salaries and instructional materials. Yet not all states take the same approach. Some states allocate money based on student or district characteristics, others allocate funds for resources such as school positions, and others focus on the base property tax rate. There are at least 33 states and the District of Columbia that use a student-based foundation, 10 states with a resource-based allocation, 5 states with a hybrid of student-based and resource-based approaches, and 2 states with guaranteed tax base/tax-levy equalization. [View the full &quot;50-State Comparison: K-12 and Special Education Funding&quot; here: https://www.ecs.org/50-state-comparison-k-12-and-special-education-funding.]
Base Amounts. 50-State Comparison: K-12 and Special Education Funding
Author: Education Commission of the States
Date: 2021-10-00
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: Educational Finance,State Policy,Educational Policy,State Legislation,Special Education,Elementary Secondary Education,Funding Formulas,Grants

Across all 50 states, there are different ways in which states allocate K-12 and special education funding to districts. Education Commission of the States has collected information on states' primary funding models, base per-student funding amounts, student attendance count methods, and funding for special education, English language learners, students from low-income backgrounds, gifted and talented, and small schools. This document is part of the &quot;50-State Comparison: K-12 and Special Education Funding.&quot; It provides details on states' base per-student funding amounts. States using a student-based foundation often provide a minimum guaranteed dollar amount that is allocated through the foundation formula to each district per student. As a note, the base amount does not necessarily equal the overall spending per student. States sometimes have other funding external to the primary funding formula, called categorical grants, that are not included in this dollar figure. Also, states may apply an additional funding weight to support services for certain student populations beyond the base amount. At least 30 states provide a minimum guaranteed dollar amount, called a base amount, that is allocated through the foundation formula to each district per student. [View the full &quot;50-State Comparison: K-12 and Special Education Funding&quot; here: https://www.ecs.org/50-state-comparison-k-12-and-special-education-funding.]
Student Count. 50-State Comparison: K-12 and Special Education Funding
Author: Education Commission of the States
Date: 2021-10-00
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: Educational Finance,State Policy,Educational Policy,State Legislation,Special Education,Elementary Secondary Education,Resource Allocation,Funding Formulas,Attendance,Average Daily Attendance,Enrollment

Across all 50 states, there are different ways in which states allocate K-12 and special education funding to districts. Education Commission of the States has collected information on states' primary funding models, base per-student funding amounts, student attendance count methods, and funding for special education, English language learners, students from low-income backgrounds, gifted and talented, and small schools. This document is part of the &quot;50-State Comparison: K-12 and Special Education Funding.&quot; It provides details on states' different approaches to how they count students. States determine the amount of funding they allocate to districts often by requiring districts to count student attendance. Education Commission of the States found the following policies currently used by states: (1) Membership average: Districts calculate their average daily enrollment for most or all of the school year; (2) Attendance average: Districts average their daily attendance counts over most or all of the school year; (3) Single count: Enrollment or attendance count from a single day, typically early in the fall; (4) Multiple counts: Enrollment or attendance counts from multiple days, typically early in the fall and spring; and (5) Enrollment count period: Enrollment counts over multiple periods or days. [View the full &quot;50-State Comparison: K-12 and Special Education Funding&quot; here: https://www.ecs.org/50-state-comparison-k-12-and-special-education-funding.]
Special Education Funding. 50-State Comparison: K-12 and Special Education Funding
Author: Education Commission of the States
Date: 2021-10-00
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: Educational Finance,State Policy,Educational Policy,State Legislation,Special Education,Elementary Secondary Education,Funding Formulas,Resource Allocation,Grants,Student Needs,Students with Disabilities,Special Needs Students,Enrollment

Across all 50 states, there are different ways in which states allocate K-12 and special education funding to districts. Education Commission of the States has collected information on states' primary funding models, base per-student funding amounts, student attendance count methods, and funding for special education, English language learners, students from low-income backgrounds, gifted and talented, and small schools. This document is part of the &quot;50-State Comparison: K-12 and Special Education Funding.&quot; It provides details on states' special education funding, such as the funding mechanism, the program name, the funding amount, if there is a cap or minimum threshold, and the funding description. [View the full &quot;50-State Comparison: K-12 and Special Education Funding&quot; here: https://www.ecs.org/50-state-comparison-k-12-and-special-education-funding.]
English Learner Funding. 50-State Comparison: K-12 and Special Education Funding
Author: Education Commission of the States
Date: 2021-10-00
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: Educational Finance,State Policy,Educational Policy,State Legislation,Special Education,Elementary Secondary Education,English Language Learners,Resource Allocation,Grants,Funding Formulas,English (Second Language),Second Language Learning,Enrollment,Student Needs

Across all 50 states, there are different ways in which states allocate K-12 and special education funding to districts. Education Commission of the States has collected information on states' primary funding models, base per-student funding amounts, student attendance count methods, and funding for special education, English language learners, students from low-income backgrounds, gifted and talented, and small schools. This document is part of the &quot;50-State Comparison: K-12 and Special Education Funding.&quot; It provides details on states' English learner funding, such as the funding mechanism, the program name, and the funding amount. [View the full &quot;50-State Comparison: K-12 and Special Education Funding&quot; here: https://www.ecs.org/50-state-comparison-k-12-and-special-education-funding.]
Funding for Students from Low-Income Backgrounds. 50-State Comparison: K-12 and Special Education Funding
Author: Education Commission of the States
Date: 2021-10-00
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: Educational Finance,State Policy,Educational Policy,State Legislation,Special Education,Elementary Secondary Education,Low Income Students,Student Needs,Enrollment,Resource Allocation,Funding Formulas,Grants,At Risk Students,Identification,Educational Legislation,Lunch Programs,Federal Legislation

Across all 50 states, there are different ways in which states allocate K-12 and special education funding to districts. Education Commission of the States has collected information on states' primary funding models, base per-student funding amounts, student attendance count methods, and funding for special education, English language learners, students from low-income backgrounds, gifted and talented, and small schools. This document is part of the &quot;50-State Comparison: K-12 and Special Education Funding.&quot; It provides details on states' funding for students from low-income backgrounds, such as the funding mechanism, the program name, the student identifier, and the dollar amount. [View the full &quot;50-State Comparison: K-12 and Special Education Funding&quot; here: https://www.ecs.org/50-state-comparison-k-12-and-special-education-funding.]
Gifted and Talented Funding. 50-State Comparison: K-12 and Special Education Funding
Author: Education Commission of the States
Date: 2021-10-00
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: Educational Finance,State Policy,Educational Policy,State Legislation,Special Education,Elementary Secondary Education,Academically Gifted,Talent,Funding Formulas,Student Needs,Enrollment,Resource Allocation,Grants

Across all 50 states, there are different ways in which states allocate K-12 and special education funding to districts. Education Commission of the States has collected information on states' primary funding models, base per-student funding amounts, student attendance count methods, and funding for special education, English language learners, students from low-income backgrounds, gifted and talented, and small schools. This document is part of the &quot;50-State Comparison: K-12 and Special Education Funding.&quot; It provides details on states' gifted and talented funding, such as the funding mechanism, the program name, and the dollar amount. [View the full &quot;50-State Comparison: K-12 and Special Education Funding&quot; here: https://www.ecs.org/50-state-comparison-k-12-and-special-education-funding.]
Small Size or Isolated Funding Adjustment. 50-State Comparison: K-12 and Special Education Funding
Author: Education Commission of the States
Date: 2021-10-00
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: Educational Finance,State Policy,Educational Policy,State Legislation,Special Education,Elementary Secondary Education,Funding Formulas,Resource Allocation,Student Needs,Enrollment,Grants,Small Schools,Rural Schools

Across all 50 states, there are different ways in which states allocate K-12 and special education funding to districts. Education Commission of the States has collected information on states' primary funding models, base per-student funding amounts, student attendance count methods, and funding for special education, English language learners, students from low-income backgrounds, gifted and talented, and small schools. This document is part of the &quot;50-State Comparison: K-12 and Special Education Funding.&quot; It provides details on states' small size or isolated funding adjustment, such as the funding mechanism, the program name, the dollar amount, and the small size identifer. [View the full &quot;50-State Comparison: K-12 and Special Education Funding&quot; here: https://www.ecs.org/50-state-comparison-k-12-and-special-education-funding.]
All Data Points. 50-State Comparison: K-12 and Special Education Funding
Author: Education Commission of the States
Date: 2021-10-00
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: Educational Finance,State Policy,Educational Policy,State Legislation,Special Education,Elementary Secondary Education,Funding Formulas,Resource Allocation,Student Needs,Enrollment,Grants,Small Schools,Rural Schools,English Language Learners,English (Second Language),Second Language Learning,At Risk Students,Low Income Students,Academically Gifted,Talent

Across all 50 states, there are different ways in which states allocate K-12 and special education funding to districts. Education Commission of the States has collected information on states' primary funding models, base per-student funding amounts, student attendance count methods, and funding for special education, English language learners, students from low-income backgrounds, gifted and talented, and small schools. This document is part of the &quot;50-State Comparison: K-12 and Special Education Funding.&quot; This document lists each state along with the following accompanying information: (1) Primary Funding Model; (2) Model Name; (3) Base Amount; (4) Student Count Method; (5) Special Education Funding Mechanism; (6) Special Education Program Name; (7) Special Education Amount (Dollar amount or weight); (8) Is there a Cap or Minimum threshold in place? (9) Special Education Funding Description; (10) English Learner Funding? (11) English Learner Funding Mechanism; (12) English Learner Program Name; (13) English Learner Amount (Dollar amount or weight); (14) At-Risk Funding for Low-Income Students; (15) Low-Income Students Funding Mechanism; (16) Low-Income Students Program Name; (17) Low-Income Students Identifier; (18) Low-Income Students Amount (Dollar amount or weight); (19) Gifted and Talented Funding? (20) Gifted and Talented Funding Mechanism; (21) Gifted and Talented Program Name; (22) Gifted and Talented Amount (Dollar amount or weight); (23) Small Size or Isolated Adjustment? (24) Small Size Funding Mechanism; (25) Small Size Program Name; (26) Small Size Amount (Dollar amount or weight); and (27) Small Size Identifier. [View the full &quot;50-State Comparison: K-12 and Special Education Funding&quot; here: https://www.ecs.org/50-state-comparison-k-12-and-special-education-funding.]
Lexical Elaboration and Typographical Enhancement: Their Discrete and Combined Impact on Incidental Vocabulary Learning
Author: Sohbati, Amir Hossein
Date: 2021-00-00
Type: Journal Articles
Subjects: Vocabulary Development,Incidental Learning,Linguistic Input,Second Language Learning,Second Language Instruction,English (Second Language),Reading Processes,Comparative Analysis,Teaching Methods,Language Tests,Scores,Foreign Countries,Language Teachers,Language Proficiency,Check Lists,Teacher Education Programs,Word Frequency

The present study examined two input modification techniques, namely lexical elaboration (LE) and typographical enhancement (TE), and the combination of these two (LE &amp; TE) to seek the difference among them as far as incidental vocabulary learning through reading is concerned. Ninety six Iranian EFL students whose reading proficiency was at intermediate level were divided into four groups and respectively read texts which were (a) lexically elaborated, (b) typographically enhanced, (c) both lexically elaborated and typographically enhanced, or (d) unmodified baseline. Right after reading, their incidental vocabulary learning was assessed by means of a modified version of Paribakht and Wesche's (1997) Vocabulary Knowledge Scale (VKS). Results of the ANOVA demonstrated a significant difference among the four groups. In order to pinpoint where the differences exactly lay, a multiple comparison was done through the application of post-hoc Scheffe Test. The results suggested that students performed significantly different and better on a text that had undergone both modification techniques (i.e. double-treatment). However, lexical elaboration alone did not have a statistically significant effect on incidental vocabulary learning through reading. More interestingly, there was no significant difference between the double-treatment and typographical enhancement groups although their mean scores were highly gapped.
The Relationship between Paternalistic Leadership Behaviors of School Administrators and Pre-School Teachers&apos; Job Satisfaction
Author: Ekmen, Ferda
Date: 2021-00-00
Type: Journal Articles
Subjects: Instructional Leadership,Leadership Styles,Teacher Administrator Relationship,Preschool Teachers,Teacher Attitudes,Job Satisfaction,Correlation,Measures (Individuals),Administrator Behavior,Foreign Countries,Work Environment

This study investigated the relationship between school administrators' paternalistic leadership behaviors and pre-school teachers' job satisfaction. The relational survey model was used in the research. The population of the study consists of 575 pre-school teachers working in 81 schools in Batman province during the 2019-2020 academic year. Sampling was not used due to the lack of a good number of teachers in the research population. The &quot;Paternalistic Leadership Behaviors Scale&quot; and the &quot;Job Satisfaction Scale&quot; were used in the study. In the statistical analysis of the data, frequency and percentage, standard deviation, arithmetic mean, independent sample t-test, ANOVA test, LSD test, and correlation and regression analysis techniques were used. As a result of the research, there was a positive, moderate-level, and significant relationship between the family atmosphere and job satisfaction, a positive, moderate-level, and significant relationship between benevolence and job satisfaction, a negative, low-level, and significant relationship between authoritarianism and job satisfaction, a negative, low-level, and significant relationship between interventionism and job satisfaction, and a negative, moderate-level, and significant relationship between inadequacy and job satisfaction. As a result of research, it was concluded that the paternalistic leadership in the dimensions of authoritarianism, interventionism, and inadequacy had a negative effect on teachers' job satisfaction levels, and the behaviors in the family atmosphere and benevolence dimensions had a positive effect on teachers' job satisfaction levels. All dimensions of paternalistic leadership explain about 26% of the total variance in teachers' job satisfaction in general.
School Life: Official Organ of the United States Bureau of Education, Department of the Interior. Volume VII. September, 1921-December, 1921
Author: Boykin, James C., Ed.
Date: 1922-00-00
Type: Historical Materials
Subjects: Educational Legislation,Federal Legislation,Education,Foreign Countries,Intellectual Disciplines,Educational Theories,Books,Organizations (Groups),Citizenship

This document contains the September 1921 through December 1921 issues of &quot;School Life,&quot; a monthly publication of the U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Education. The journal issues cover a variety of education topics across education sectors, legislation before Congress, foreign schools and education systems, education association activities, education in disciplines, education theory, citizenship and public affairs, and new education books. An index to volume VII is included.
School Life: Official Organ of the United States Bureau of Education, Department of the Interior. Volume VIII. September, 1922-June, 1923
Author: Boykin, James C., Ed.
Date: 1923-00-00
Type: Historical Materials
Subjects: Educational Legislation,Federal Legislation,Education,Intellectual Disciplines,Foreign Countries,Educational Theories,Books,Organizations (Groups),Citizenship

This document contains the September 1922 through June 1923 issues of &quot;School Life,&quot; a monthly publication of the U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Education. The journal issues cover a variety of topics across education sectors, legislation before Congress, foreign schools and education systems, education association activities, education in disciplines, education theory, citizenship and public affairs, and new education books. An index to volume VIII is included.
School Life: Official Organ of the United States Bureau of Education, Department of the Interior. Volume XIV. September, 1928-June, 1929
Author: Boykin, James C., Ed.
Date: 1929-00-00
Type: Historical Materials
Subjects: Educational Legislation,Federal Legislation,Education,Intellectual Disciplines,Foreign Countries,Educational Theories,Books,Organizations (Groups),Citizenship

This document contains the September 1928 through June 1929 issues of &quot;School Life,&quot; a monthly publication of the U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Education. The journal issues cover a variety of topics across education sectors, legislation before Congress, foreign schools and education systems, education association activities, education in disciplines, education theory, citizenship and public affairs, and new education books. A volume XIV index is included.
Interaction Increasing Factors: Research on E-Learning Content Design
Author: Soydas Çakir, Hülya
Date: 2021-00-00
Type: Journal Articles
Subjects: Electronic Learning,Online Courses,Course Content,Learning Processes,Interaction,Instructional Design,Instructional Effectiveness,Active Learning,Technology Integration,Academic Achievement,Attention,Age Differences,Student Motivation,Student Satisfaction,Undergraduate Students,Graduate Students,Foreign Countries,Performance Factors

Interaction is one of the key elements for learning and it also has a significant role in increasing efficiency in e-learning programs. Several studies indicate that high level of learner and content interaction provided by e-learning programs brings learner satisfaction and achievement. During the learning process, content interaction provides an effective means to reach learning goals. Successful content design and adequate content interaction items are essential to sustain attention, provide motivation, achieve high levels of satisfaction of learning and provide significant increase in learning performance. In this study, perception and expectation of 236 e-learners are examined to observe the outcomes of content design in learning. The items required for content interaction are classified under three main topics as Attention-Motivation, Satisfaction and Learning Performance. The research model is based on how efficient design of these items helps to increase learner and content interaction. The increase of interaction will result in learner achievement. Therefore, the efficiency of the e-learning process will correlate with higher levels of learner-content interaction. Adequate and efficient content design contributes to effective learning.