ethanporcaro/eric-fulltext-meta huggingface dataset:
Why Spatial Reasoning Matters for Education Policy
Author: Wai, Jonathan
Date: 2018-10-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Spatial Ability,Educational Policy,Educational Benefits,Standardized Tests,Higher Education,Training,Educational Change,Measurement,Talent Development,Innovation,Economically Disadvantaged,Tests,Educational Opportunities,Low Income Students,Barriers,Elementary Secondary Education

In schools today, tests and curricula are primarily suited to the types of students who excel in mathematics and verbal reasoning. The missing factor in testing and education policy is the measurement, selection, and talent development of students with strengths in spatial reasoning. Spatial reasoning is defined as &quot;the ability to generate, retain, retrieve, and transform well-structured visual images.&quot; It is related to the shape, size, orientation, location, direction, or trajectory of objects and their relative positions. Spatial reasoning uses the properties of space as a vehicle for structuring problems, finding answers, and expressing solutions. Spatial reasoning is linked to positive educational outcomes in STEM and is a strong predictor of success in the visual arts and vocational, manufacturing, and technical careers. Students with this ability are not being identified or developed effectively. Consequently, society is missing out on innovation from a larger pool of spatially talented individuals who could be engineers and inventors if their abilities were more fully developed. Including spatial measures in tests, teaching spatial reasoning, education teachers, and developing matching curriculum are policy solutions that could significantly expand opportunities for students with spatial reasoning strengths, while simultaneously improving innovation in society. Among the topics discussed in this report are: the history of spatial reasoning, why spatial reasoning is important, what is missing in standardized tests and how this affects higher education, training and testing spatial reasoning, and core recommendations for innovations and reforms in education policy.
Federal Student Loan Defaults: What Happens after Borrowers Default and Why
Author: Delisle, Jason D.
Date: 2018-08-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: Student Financial Aid,Loan Repayment,Loan Default,Public Policy,Fees,Credit (Finance),Longitudinal Studies,Paying for College

This report aims to expand the window into federal student loan defaults beyond the event of default itself. It attempts to provide the most robust look to date of what happens to student loans &quot;after a borrower defaults and why.&quot; Ultimately, this information should help policymakers evaluate the current set of policies related to default collections as well as pose new questions for researchers to explore. Note that this analysis focuses on government policies, such as exit pathways, fees, and interest related to default, as well as borrower repayment behavior. The report is divided into two sections. The first section analyzes a new data set from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) that tracks how the federal student loans of students who began college during the 2003-04 academic year perform over the following 13 years. The authors answer questions such as how long borrowers stay in default, what paths borrowers use to exit default, and how balances on defaulted loans change over time. The second section uses hypothetical borrower-level examples to simulate the effects of default--such as interest, fees, and penalties--that accrue on the loans. These examples are informed by the preceding data analysis and are based on extensive research into government policies for collecting defaulted loans and helping borrowers exit default. Overall, the findings suggest that the popular impressions of borrower outcomes after default, even among policymakers and researchers, are overly simplistic. There is no one typical path borrowers follow after defaulting on a federal student loan. While some borrowers stay in default for years, others leave default quickly. Some borrowers see their balances rise throughout their time in default, while others pay down their loans in full. These outcomes do not always correlate the way one might expect: A borrower who has exited default often has not repaid his loan (although he may eventually), and a borrower still in default is often making rapid progress toward fully repaying his debts.
Middle School Transition Planning Practices
Author: Chang, Wen-hsuan
Date: 2018-05-00
Type: Reference Materials - Bibliographies
Subjects: Middle Schools,Transitional Programs,Middle School Students,Disabilities,Individualized Education Programs,Educational Legislation,Federal Legislation,Equal Education,Annotated Bibliographies,Intervention,Assistive Technology,Daily Living Skills,Autism,Pervasive Developmental Disorders,Student Participation,Evidence Based Practice,Self Determination,Self Advocacy,Mental Disorders,Deafness,Hearing Impairments,Special Education,Special Education Teachers,Emotional Disturbances

Students with disabilities experience higher unemployment, attend postsecondary environments less often, and engage less in their communities after graduating from high school compared to their peers without disabilities (Newman, Wagner, Knokey, Marder, Nagle, Shaver, &amp; Schwarting, 2011). In middle school, young adolescents with disabilities are 50% more likely than their counterparts without disabilities to drop out of school (President's Commission on Excellence in Special Education, 2002). Researchers and policymakers at the federal level have been trying to address these disparities. At the federal level, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments (IDEA) of 2004 mandated a transition component be included in the Individual Education Program (IEP) for students with disabilities at no later than age 16. Each transition component must be based on students' transition strengths, needs, interests, and preferences. This legislation also requires students with disabilities to participate, at an appropriate individual level, in the IEP planning process. This requirement encourages educators to beginning preparing students with disabilities at an early age. The purpose of this Annotated Bibliography is to identify and summarize: (1) what interventions have been used based on experimental studies about preparing students in middle school (ages 11-13) for transition to post-school environments and activities; (2) what else educators are doing now based on descriptive and correlational studies; and (3) what might educators do based on discussion articles.
Providing Learners Access to Diverse Career Pathways. CTE on the Frontier
Author: Advance CTE: State Leaders Connecting Learning to Work
Date: 2017-12-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: Vocational Education,Rural Schools,Access to Education,Partnerships in Education,Electronic Learning,Community Colleges,Educational Television,Secondary Education,Postsecondary Education

Rural communities all too often face scarce funding, instructors and facilities, forcing institutions to choose between offering a variety of introductory courses across a breadth of subjects or providing more narrowly focused, sequenced programs within one or two priority Career Clusters. Providing learners access to diverse career pathways in rural areas is a persistent challenge for all states. This brief from Advance CTE is the third installment in the &quot;CTE on the Frontier series,&quot; designed to help states identify promising strategies for expanding the variety of career pathways available in rural areas. The brief profiles how states such as Nebraska, Alaska, North Dakota and Idaho have leveraged strategic partnerships and new technologies to reach economies of scale and offer a wider breadth of career pathways to rural learners. [This brief was developed through the New Skills for Youth initiative, a partnership of the Council of Chief State School Officers, Advance CTE and Education Strategy Group.]
Guarding the Freedom to Speak, Freedom to Hear: A Guide for Higher Education Trustees
Author: Lee, Malcolm Joyce
Date: 2018-10-00
Type: Guides - Non-Classroom
Subjects: Freedom of Speech,Higher Education,Trustees,Governing Boards,Campuses,College Environment,Activism,Student Rights,Social Attitudes,Academic Freedom

Freedom of speech, protected by our Constitution, has long been a vital component of political, social, and intellectual life in our country. The American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA) has dedicated itself for more than 23 years to working with trustees to ensure that our nation's colleges and universities preserve this essential freedom on campus. This freedom is under attack on a disturbingly large number of our nation's campuses. The &quot;heckler's veto,&quot; by which loud and sometimes violent protests prevent a speaker from delivering a lecture or participating on a panel, is one particularly obnoxious form of silencing free speech. Equally damaging and dangerous are the campaigns to discourage an invited speaker from coming to campus or to coerce a &quot;disinvitation&quot; of the invited guest. By understanding how and why these disruptions happen, as well as recognizing their potential to occur on virtually any campus, boards of trustees can develop policies to mitigate the risk of incidents that could readily bring physical damage and very negative public attention to their institutions. ACTA has long emphasized how essential boards of trustees are in establishing the principles and upholding the laws protecting free speech and free assembly at colleges and universities. Three primary aims of this guide are: (1) To educate trustees about the legal and ethical norms that make the practices of the &quot;heckler's veto&quot; and disinvitations inherently problematic; (2) To prompt self-scrutiny and preparedness by outlining key questions boards of trustees and others should be asking; and (3) To offer practical and clear guidelines to help trustees cultivate a campus climate where free speech can flourish.
Quick Guide: Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Youth-Secondary Transition
Author: Clark, Kelly A.
Date: 2017-00-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Cultural Differences,Limited English Speaking,Student Diversity,Youth,Secondary School Students,Minority Group Students,Immigrants,Disabilities,Transitional Programs,Family Role,Cultural Awareness,Student Educational Objectives,Success,Career Counseling,Student School Relationship,Vocational Education,Multicultural Education,Student Needs

Cultural and linguistic diversity (CLD) refers to interactions and comparisons between people within an environment, rather than specific characteristics of an individual (Barrera &amp; Corso, 2003). Students who are typically included in this category are (1) African Americans; (2) Asian Americans; (3) Native Americans; (4) Hispanic Americans; (5) Pacific Islanders; (6) students who speak English as a second language; and (7) students who have immigrant or undocumented status (Trainor, Lindstrom, Simon-Burroughs, Martin, &amp; McCray Sorrels, 2008). Recently, Lipscomb et al. (2017) found students with disabilities are 5% more likely than students without disabilities to be black (19% vs. 24%); but almost equally as likely to be Hispanic (24% vs. 25%) and to be limited English proficient (10% vs. 8%). In addition, data from the National Longitudinal Transition Studies (NLTS1 &amp; NLTS2) indicated post-school outcomes of youth with disabilities are lower than their peers without disabilities in the areas of education, employment, independent living (Blackorby &amp; Wagner, 1996; Newman et al., 2011). This document answers the following common questions about CLD youth: (1) Why is Supporting CLD Youth and their Families in Secondary Transition Important? (2) What Does Research Say about How to Support CLD Youth in Secondary Transition? (3) Where Do You Find Resources to Support CLD Youth and Their Families during Secondary Transition? (4) How Does This Apply to Administrators? (5) How Does This Apply to School-Level Practitioners? (6) How Does This Apply to Transition Specialists? (7) How Does This Apply to Vocational Rehabilitation Counselors? and (8) How Does This Apply to Families?
Alaska&apos;s Public Schools: 2016-2017 Report Card to the Public
Author: Alaska Department of Education and Early Development
Date: 2017-00-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Public Schools,Academic Standards,Educational Assessment,National Competency Tests,College Entrance Examinations,Accountability,Graduation Requirements,Graduation Rate,Dropout Rate,Attendance,Accreditation (Institutions),Teacher Effectiveness,Elementary Secondary Education,Preschool Education,Academic Achievement

This &quot;Report Card to the Public&quot; is a useful, yet limited, resource for families, communities, and policy makers to determine if Alaska's schools are working as well as they should for all students. Through Alaska's Education Challenge, Alaskans expressed three commitments toward the shared vision for an excellent education for every student: (1) Increase Student Success; (2) Cultivate Safety and Well-Being; and (3) Support Responsible and Reflective Learners. As communities use the information in the Report Card to develop action plans for each of these commitments, students in Alaska will learn more and be better prepared for the uncertain world in which they will live. Readers can learn at-a-glance information about standards and assessments, college entrance examinations, Alaska school and district accountability, designation of schools, high school completion requirements, graduation rates, dropout rates, changes in average daily membership, student attendance rate, accreditation, and teacher quality. [Cover title: &quot;State of Alaska Department of Education &amp; Early Development: 2016-2017 Report Card to the Public.&quot; For &quot;Alaska's Public Schools: 2015-2016 Report Card to the Public,&quot; see ED574766.]
What Will They Learn? 2018-2019. A Survey of Core Requirements at Our Nation&apos;s Colleges and Universities
Author: Riethmiller, Megan
Date: 2018-00-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: Core Curriculum,College Curriculum,Liberal Arts,Public Colleges,Private Colleges,Writing (Composition),Literature,Second Languages,United States Government (Course),United States History,Economics Education,History Instruction,College Mathematics,College Science,Natural Sciences,Educational Quality,Required Courses,General Education

Ten years ago, the American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA) gathered data on 100 colleges from the U.S. News &amp; World Report's annual list of &quot;Best Colleges and Universities.&quot; ACTA questioned whether these elite institutions were requiring their students to take rigorous, college-level courses in the core areas crucial for success. The results of this survey were dismal--showing that students could bypass essential courses that cultivate critical thinking, logic, writing skills, and mathematics, and revealing that American colleges are often failing to provide a truly collegiate education. If students are not taking college-level courses in core subjects, then what courses are they taking, and more importantly, what are they learning? ACTA prepared this report, to answer this question, of great concern to students, parents, and employers. Other ranking systems pit schools against each other in an effort to rank schools from &quot;best&quot; to &quot;worst.&quot; These rankings focus on external inputs, such as alumni giving and admission selection, rather than on what actually happens in the classroom. ACTA, however, believes each school should be evaluated based on its academic substance--what fundamental skills and knowledge does the institution require of its students? Since the first survey, ACTA has expanded the analysis to include over 1,100 colleges and universities in order to evaluate whether each individual school requires the essential areas of a liberal arts core curriculum. [For the 2017 report see ED581897.]
Advancing Program Review: Evaluating and Envisioning the Future of Program Review at Illinois Community Colleges
Author: Fox, Heather L.
Date: 2018-11-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: Program Evaluation,Community Colleges,Decision Making,Educational Planning,Educational Quality,Cost Effectiveness,Best Practices,Guides,Formative Evaluation,Career Education,Technical Education,Institutional Evaluation,Institutional Characteristics,Efficiency,Instructional Leadership,Communities of Practice,Advisory Committees,Information Literacy,College Faculty,Equal Education,Statewide Planning,Governance,Information Technology

Through its program review process, the Illinois Community College Board (ICCB) coordinates a statewide system of review of programs of study provided by community colleges in Illinois. The intent of this review process is to support colleges in making campus-level planning and decision-making related to the quality, cost effectiveness, assessment, and improvement of programs. In addition, the review process identifies programs that should be discontinued or scaled-back and offers best practices and other exemplary innovations that can be scaled internally or externally within the college. A significantly modified 2017-2021 program review manual and supporting materials are provided by the ICCB to guide the process. As such, evaluation of the new manual, as well as supportive processes and materials, presents a timely opportunity to provide formative feedback intended to improve the efficacy of the process. The Office of Community College Research and Leadership (OCCRL) is conducting an evaluation of the ICCB program review process for career and technical education (CTE) programs. The first phase of the study, summarized in this report, focuses on the first cycle of the ICCB's new program review process that ended September 1, 2017. OCCRL has four goals for this evaluation study: (1) Improve the efficiency and efficacy of the program review process by identifying challenges, redundancies and omissions, and provide recommendations for refining the process; (2) Examine variations of the program review process across institutional contexts and institutional identities (e.g., rural/suburban/urban, minority-serving institutions/predominately white institutions, small/large student populations) to understand how the process is utilized across diverse institutions throughout Illinois; (3) Identify professional development, technical support, and supplemental materials that could improve outcomes associated with the program review; and (4) Enhance the application of program review findings in colleges' campus-level programmatic planning and decision-making. This report discusses the study, focuses on specific areas of ICCB's CTE program review template, offers suggestions for improvement, and discusses next steps to extend and expand on the information learned from the expertise shared in this initial study.
Yearly Success and Progress Rates (Fall 2011 Entering Cohort). Snapshot™ Report, Spring 2018
Author: National Student Clearinghouse Research Center
Date: 2018-00-00
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: College Freshmen,Success,Part Time Students,Full Time Students,Private Colleges,Public Colleges,Two Year Colleges,Two Year College Students,Enrollment Rate,Graduation Rate

This Snapshot Report is based on the cohort of fall 2011 entering students extracted for NSC Signature Report #14: A National View of Student Completion Rates. There were two major changes from prior versions of the report on completion rates that pertained to cohort definitions: (1) All-years look-back for prior enrollments: Data limitations in previous reports limited our ability to search for previous enrollments in order to establish first-time status, to within four years prior to the cohort year. Beginning with this year's report, students with any prior non-dual enrollment, regardless of how far back in the Clearinghouse data that enrollment occurred, were removed from the cohort as non-first-time students; (2) Exclusion of current dual enrolled students: Students who were 17 years old or younger during the fall 2011 semester were excluded from the dataset (i.e., current dual enrollment students). This was done to ensure that those who were simultaneously attending high school and post-secondary classes were not considered first-time college students. This brief report presents the following statistics on yearly success and progress rates: (1) Yearly Success and Progress: All Institutional Sectors First-Time, Full-Time Degree-Seeking Students (N=1,819,561); (2) Yearly Success and Progress: All Institutional Sectors First-Time, Part-Time Degree-Seeking Students (N= 411,944); (3) Yearly Success and Progress: Four-Year Public Institutions First-Time, Full-Time Degree-Seeking Students (N=872,735); (4) Yearly Success and Progress: Four-Year Public Institutions First-Time, Part-Time Degree-Seeking Students (N=123,450); (5) Yearly Success and Progress: Four-Year Private Non-Profit Institutions First-Time, Full-Time Degree-Seeking Students (N=392,532); (6) Yearly Success and Progress: Four-Year Private Non-Profit Institutions First-Time, Part-Time Degree-Seeking Students (N=25,166); (7) Yearly Success and Progress: Four-Year For-Profit Institutions First-Time, Full-Time Degree-Seeking Students (N=44,542); (8) Yearly Success and Progress: Four-Year For-Profit Institutions First-Time, Part-Time Degree-Seeking Students (N= 9,644); (9) Yearly Success and Progress: Two-Year Public Institutions First-Time, Full-Time Degree-Seeking Students (N=504,903); and (10) Yearly Success and Progress: Two-Year Public Institutions First-Time, Part-Time Degree-Seeking Students (N=253,256).
Summary of the Annual Statistical Report of Schools: Describing and Summarizing the FY2015 School Statistical Report Reported by School Districts by August 15, 2015
Author: Vermont Agency of Education
Date: 2016-06-00
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: Annual Reports,School Districts,School Statistics,Income,Educational Trends,Trend Analysis,Elementary Secondary Education,Data,Public Education,Public Schools,Expenditure per Student,School District Spending,Unions

The Summary of the Annual Statistical Report of Schools (SASRS) report provides Local Education Agencies (LEAs) and other interested parties the data submitted to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) by the Agency of Education. Consequently, data in SASRS are organized according to federal definitions. NCES uses this information to identify issues and trends in school finance, to assess the condition of school finance in each state and for making comparisons among states. Data submitted to NCES are also used to determine state allocations for some federal programs. Highlighted findings for this year's report include: (1) 337 Public Local Education Agencies (including 15 technical centers), submitted the FY15 Annual Statistical Report of Schools; (2) Total public school revenues are $1,939,718,391 but this amount includes $265,303,590 in inter-district receipts for tuition, assessments, transportation and other services. Unduplicated public school revenues are $1,674,414,800; and (3) There is a reported $1,471,552,497 in total public education PK-12 current expenditures. This represents an increase in spending of $27.5 million (1.9%) from the previous year's spending level; and (4) The FY15 statewide average Current Expenditure per Student in Membership is $17,774. [For the FY2014 report, see ED592003.]