ethanporcaro/eric-fulltext-meta huggingface dataset:
Innovations in College Affordability. Hearing of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, United States Senate, One Hundred Twelfth Congress, Second Session on Examining Innovations in College Affordability (February 2, 2012). Senate Hearing 112-888
Author: US Senate. Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Date: 2014-00-00
Type: Legal/Legislative/Regulatory Materials
Subjects: Student Costs,College Students,Innovation,Student Financial Aid,Educational Finance,Higher Education

This hearing of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions examines innovations in college affordability. After an opening statement by Honorable Tom Harkin (Chairman, Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions), the following senators provide statements: (1) Honorable Barbara A. Mikulski, a U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland; (2) Honorable Richard Burr, a U.S. Senator from the State of North Carolina; (3) Honorable Michael B. Enzi, a U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming; (4) Honorable Patty Murray, a U.S. Senator from the State of Washington; (4) Honorable Lamar Alexander, a U.S. Senator from the State of Tennessee; (5) Honorable Michael F. Bennet, a U.S. Senator from the State of Colorado; (6) Honorable Al Franken, a U.S. Senator from the State of Minnesota; and (7) Honorable Jeff Merkley, a U.S. Senator from the State of Oregon. Prepared witness statements are offered by: (1) Martha Kanter, Under Secretary, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC; (2) Kevin Carey, Education Policy Director, Education Sector, Washington, DC; (3) Carol E. Quillen, President, Davidson College, Davidson, NC; (4) Robert W. Mendenhall, Ph.D., President, Western Governors University, Salt Lake City, UT; and (5) Charles N. Earl, M.A., B.A., Executive Director, Washington State Board for Community and Technical Colleges, Olympia, WA. Statements, articles, publications, letters, etc. are provided by Pennsylvania Association of Private School Administration (PAPSA). Additional material includes responses by: (1) Carol E. Quillen to questions of: Senator Enzi, Senator Hagan, and Senator Murray; (2) Robert W. Mendenhall, Ph.D. to questions of: Senator Enzi, Senator Hagan, and Senator Murray; and (3) Charles N. Earl, M.A., B.A. to questions of: Senator Enzi, Senator Hagan, and Senator Murray.
Update: The State of Native Education. Report to the Legislature
Author: Phillips, Latifah
Date: 2018-00-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: American Indian Students,American Indian Education,Culturally Relevant Education,State Legislation,Tribally Controlled Education,Tribes,Agency Cooperation,Preschool Education,Elementary Secondary Education,Postsecondary Education,Curriculum,Technical Assistance,Graduation Rate,Dropout Rate

In 2017, Washington's schools served 69,490 public school students that identified as American Indian/Alaskan Native (AI/AN). The Office of Native Education (ONE), established in the 1960s, assists AI/AN students to achieve basic education goals and meet state standards while supporting cultural identity. This report addresses the accomplishments and recommendations of ONE, a department within the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI). Among these accomplishments are: (1) Adding Chief Leschi Tribal School as the sixth State-Tribal Education Compact (STEC) school, joining Wa He Lut Indian School, Lummi Nation Schools, Chief Kitsap Academy, Muckleshoot Tribal School, and Quileute Indian School; (2) The passage of Senate Bill 6474 (2018), which created a pilot project for tribal compact schools to accommodate cultural and agricultural events in school attendance requirements; and (3) Deepening relations continue with tribes, tribal education staff, Indian education programs, and state entities from early learning to higher education as directed by Revised Code of Washington (RCW) RCW 43.376.
Promoting Pre-Apprenticeship Opportunities for High School Students, 2018. Report to the Legislature
Author: Wallace, Rebecca
Date: 2018-00-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: High School Students,State Legislation,Alignment (Education),Vocational Education,College School Cooperation,Curriculum,Graduation Requirements,Barriers,Apprenticeships,Knowledge Level,Youth Programs,Dual Enrollment,Information Dissemination,Outreach Programs,Access to Education,Financial Support

House Bill 2685 (2018) required the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) to solicit input from organizations with expertise in registered pre-apprenticeship programs, registered youth apprenticeship programs, and employer-based pre-apprenticeship and youth apprenticeship programs. Based on their input, the legislation required OSPI to submit a report with recommendations for: (1) Improving alignment between college-level vocational courses at higher education institutions and high school curriculum and graduation requirements; (2) Identifying and removing barriers that prevent the wider exploration and use of registered pre-apprenticeship and registered youth apprenticeship opportunities for students; and (3) Increasing awareness among teachers, counselors, students, parents and guardians, principals, administrators, and the public about the opportunities offered by registered pre-apprenticeship and registered youth apprenticeship programs. This report reflects information collected in partnership with the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges (SBCTC), Labor and Industries (L&amp;I), and the Washington State Apprenticeship and Training Council (WSATC), and stakeholders of the partner agencies.
Effective Strategies for Accelerated Learning. Hearing of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, United States Senate, One Hundred Twelfth Congress, Second Session on Examining Effective Strategies for Accelerated Learning (April 18, 2012). Senate Hearing 112-906
Author: US Senate. Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Date: 2014-00-00
Type: Legal/Legislative/Regulatory Materials
Subjects: Acceleration (Education),Access to Education,Higher Education,Advanced Placement Programs,Dual Enrollment,High Schools,College School Cooperation,College Preparation

This is a hearing of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, and it is focused on, &quot;Effective Strategies for Accelerated Learning.&quot; This phrase &quot;accelerated learning,&quot; has been used to refer to a variety of issues in education. In the context of this hearing, the Committee is referring to different approaches that allow students to access higher education coursework before they get to college. These approaches include exam-based approaches such as the Advanced Placement courses; dual credit or concurrent enrollment courses; Early College High Schools, what has been referred to as middle college high schools. There are some important differences across these approaches, and one of the Committee's purposes is to try to understand those differences, and which of these approaches makes the most sense. Following opening statements by Honorable Jeff Bingaman (U.S. Senator from the State of New Mexico), Honorable Al Franken (U.S. Senator from the State of Minnesota), and Honorable Michael F. Bennet (U.S. Senator from the State of Colorado), the following provide prepared witness statements: (1) Thomas W. Rudin, Senior Vice President, The College Board, Washington, DC; (2) Carolyn Bacon Dickson, Executive Director, O'Donnell Foundation, The Texas AP Incentive Program, Dallas, Texas; (3) Peter Winograd, Director, University of New Mexico Center for Policy Research, Albuquerque, New Mexico; (4) Marybeth Schubert, Executive Director, New Mexico Advanced Programs Initiative, Santa Fe, New Mexico; and (5) Joel Vargas, Vice President, Jobs for the Future, Boston, Massachusetts.
Beyond Seclusion and Restraint: Creating Positive Learning Environments for All Students. Hearing of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, United States Senate, One Hundred Twelfth Congress, Second Session on Examining Creating Positive Learning Environments for All Students (July 12, 2012). Senate Hearing 112-924
Author: US Senate. Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Date: 2015-00-00
Type: Legal/Legislative/Regulatory Materials
Subjects: Educational Environment,Access to Education,Educational Legislation,Equal Education,Federal Legislation,Civil Rights Legislation,Inclusion,Child Safety,Behavior Disorders,Autism,Pervasive Developmental Disorders,Evidence Based Practice,Punishment,Discipline Policy,Minority Group Students,Students with Disabilities,Disproportionate Representation,Positive Behavior Supports

This hearing of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions examines creating positive learning environments for all students beyond seclusion and restraint. Following an opening statement by Honorable Tom Harkin (Chairman, Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions) and Honorable Johnny Isakson (U.S. Senator from the State of Georgia), the following provide statements: (1) Daniel Crimmins, B.A., M.A., Ph.D., Director, Center for Leadership in Disability, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA; (2) Michael George, Director, Centennial School, Bethlehem, PA; (3) Cyndi Pitonyak, Coordinator of Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports, Montgomery County Public Schools, Christiansburg, VA; and (4) Deborah (Debbie) Jackson, Parent, Easton, PA. Statements, articles, publications, letters, etc. were provided by Autism National Committee, National School Boards Association, and Consortium for Citizens With Disabilities (CCD). Additional material includes response to questions of Senator Murray by: Daniel Crimmins, B.A., M.A., Ph.D., Michael George, Cyndi Pitonyak, and Deborah (Debbie) Jackson.
Update: School Transportation Efficiency. Report to the Legislature
Author: Gorton, Glenn
Date: 2018-00-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: Student Transportation,Special Education,Costs,Program Effectiveness,Barriers

In September 2011, Washington state adopted a new student transportation evaluation system. The goal of the system, being part of the transportation funding system, is to encourage school districts to operate as efficiently as possible. The Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) uses a statistical process to determine relative efficiency ratings. The process sets a target for transportation expenditures and the number of buses operated. The results show a majority of school districts are operating above 90 percent efficiency. Regional Transportation Coordinators (RTCs) conduct efficiency reviews of districts whose efficiency ratings are less than 90 percent. This is the sixth year of the RTC efficiency review process. The RTCs conducted reviews on 61 school districts in 2017-18. Sixty-one districts rated less than 90 percent, which is 13 fewer than last year. Of these 61 districts, 15 districts were not reviewed in 2016-17. Of the 74 districts rated less than 90 percent last year, 28 increased their efficiency rating to above 90 percent. Seventeen districts below 90 percent in 2016-17 increased their efficiency rating to 100 percent. In addition to the efficiency reviews, OSPI analyzes districts using three Key Performance Indicators (KPIs): (1) The number of basic program students per basic program bus; (2) The number of special education students per special education bus; and (3) The cost per student transported.
Issue Brief: Personalized Learning Plans
Author: Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development (ED), Policy and Program Studies Service
Date: 2017-12-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: High School Graduates,Graduation Rate,Dropout Prevention,At Risk Students,Incidence,Public Schools,High Schools,Educational Improvement,Student Needs,Individualized Instruction,Planning,Poverty,English Language Learners,Reentry Students,School Size,Geographic Location,Goal Orientation

In 2015-16, the high school graduation rate reached a record high of 84 percent (U.S. Department of Education 2017). Despite the gains, over half a million students still drop out of high school each year (U.S. Department of Education 2015). High schools have adopted various strategies designed to keep students who are at risk of not graduating in school and on track for earning the credits required to graduate. &quot;At-risk&quot; students are defined as those failing to achieve basic proficiency in key subjects or exhibiting behaviors that can lead to failure and/or dropping out of school. Dropout prevention strategies are diverse; they vary in type of program, services offered, frequency, intensity, and duration of contact with target students. The U.S. Department of Education (Department) sponsored the National Survey on High School Strategies Designed to Help At-Risk Students Graduate (HSS), which aimed to provide descriptive information on the prevalence and characteristics of dropout prevention strategies for at-risk students. The survey collected data in the 2014-15 school year from a nationally representative sample of 2,142 public high schools and focused on 13 specific high school improvement strategies identified by a panel of external experts and senior Department officials. All findings are based on self-reported data from school principals.
Issue Brief: Student Support Teams
Author: Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development (ED), Policy and Program Studies Service
Date: 2017-01-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: Teamwork,At Risk Students,High School Students,Dropout Prevention,Academic Persistence,School Holding Power,Incidence,Public Schools,Student Personnel Services,School Size,Poverty,Geographic Location,Graduation Rate,Institutional Characteristics,Academic Support Services,Progress Monitoring,Intervention

In 2014-15, the high school graduation rate reached a record high of 83 percent (U.S. Department of Education 2016). Despite the gains, over half a million students still drop out of high school each year (U.S. Department of Education 2015). High schools have adopted various strategies designed to keep students who are at risk of not graduating in school and on track for earning the credits required to graduate. &quot;At-risk&quot; students are defined as those failing to achieve basic proficiency in key subjects or exhibiting behaviors that can lead to failure and/or dropping out of school. Dropout prevention strategies are diverse; they vary in type of program, services offered, frequency, intensity, and duration of contact with target students. The U.S. Department of Education (Department) sponsored the National Survey on High School Strategies Designed to Help At-Risk Students Graduate (HSS), which aimed to provide descriptive information on the prevalence and characteristics of dropout prevention strategies for at-risk students. The survey collected data in the 2014-15 school year from a nationally representative sample of 2,142 public high schools that focused on 13 specific high school improvement strategies identified by a panel of external experts and senior Department officials. This brief describes the prevalence of student support teams as a high school dropout prevention strategy. This brief does not measure the effectiveness of the strategy but instead describes the kinds of schools that offer SSTs and the different approaches to SST implementation. This analysis included an examination of four school characteristics: (1) size, (2) poverty, (3) locale, and (4) graduation rate. Only statistically significant differences within a school characteristic (at p &lt; 0.05) are discussed.
Update: Special Education Safety Net Survey. Report to the Legislature
Author: O'Donnell, Amber
Date: 2018-00-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Special Education,Financial Support,Educational Finance,School Districts,Program Effectiveness,State Legislation,Training,Access to Information,Individualized Education Programs

Safety Net funding is available to local education agencies (LEAs) that demonstrate a need for special education funding in excess of state and federal funding. The Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) annually publishes a bulletin and distributes application forms for Safety Net funding. The Legislature requires OSPI to annually survey LEAs about their satisfaction with the Safety Net process. The survey is used to consider feedback from LEAs to improve the Safety Net process. In September 2018, OSPI sent the survey to more than 1,000 administrators from all LEAs. This update discusses 2017-18 survey changes and survey responses.
Bullying-Free Schools: How Local, State and Federal Efforts Can Help. Field Hearing of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, United States Senate, One Hundred Twelfth Congress, Second Session on Examining Solutions to Create Bullying-Free Schools, Focusing on How Local, State and Federal Efforts Can Help (June 8, 2012, Des Moines, IA). Senate Hearing 112-913
Author: US Senate. Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Date: 2014-00-00
Type: Legal/Legislative/Regulatory Materials
Subjects: Bullying,Public Schools,Prevention,Federal Government,State Government,Students with Disabilities,LGBTQ People,Civil Rights,School Districts

This hearing of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions examines bullying-free schools: how local, state and federal efforts can help. Following an opening statement by Honorable Tom Harkin (Chairman, Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions), the following prepared statements are presented: (1) Russlynn H. Ali, Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC; (2) Linda M. Calbom, Western Regional Manager, U.S. Government Accountability Office, Sammamish, Washington; (3) Emily L. Domayer, Student, Morningside College, Sioux City, Iowa; (4) Penny Bisignano, Consultant for Bullying Prevention and Intervention, Iowa Department of Education, Des Moines, Iowa; (5) Paul R. Gausman, Ed.D., Superintendent, Sioux City Community School District, Sioux City, Iowa; (6) Ellen Reilly, Learning Support Specialist, Davenport Community Schools, Moline, Illinois; (7) Matt Shankles, Student, Linn-Mar High School, Marion, Iowa; and (8) Liz Sederquist, Student, Des Moines Area Community College, Ames, Iowa. Statements, articles, publications, letters, etc. were provided by Chad Griffin, President, Human Rights Campaign and Anti-Defamation League.
Making College Affordability a Priority: Promising Practices and Strategies. Hearing of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, United States Senate, One Hundred Twelfth Congress, Second Session on Examining Making College Affordability a Priority, Focusing on Promising Practices and Strategies (July 19, 2012). Senate Hearing 112-927
Author: US Senate. Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Date: 2015-00-00
Type: Legal/Legislative/Regulatory Materials
Subjects: Educational Finance,Paying for College,Access to Education,Public Policy,Educational Policy,Universities,Higher Education,Hearings,Federal Aid,Student Financial Aid,Grants,Tuition,Educational Legislation,Federal Legislation,Economic Factors,Acceleration (Education),Dual Enrollment,Articulation (Education),Transfer Policy,Curriculum Design,Online Courses,Parent Financial Contribution,Loan Default,College Students,Student Employment,Costs

This is the second Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions committee hearing this year focusing on college affordability. The focus is on institutions that are breaking with &quot;business as usual&quot; to implement promising strategies and practices, innovations, and initiatives to improve college affordability. The panel emphasizes efforts at the institutional level that are proving successful in curbing costs, both for colleges and students, while improving student access and student success. These innovations can help inform the committee's work in designing Federal policy, and may be worthy of being replicated and scaled up to help America regain and retain its global leadership. Following opening statements by Honorable Tom Harkin (Chairman, Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions) and Honorable Michael B. Enzi (U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming), the following senators provided statements: (1) Honorable Richard Burr, U.S. Senator from the State of North Carolina; (2) Honorable Jeff Bingaman, U.S. Senator from the State of New Mexico; (3) Honorable Lamar Alexander (U.S. Senator from the State of Tennessee); (4) Honorable Al Franken, U.S. Senator from the State of Minnesota; (5) Honorable Jeff Merkley, U.S. Senator from the State of Oregon; and (6) Honorable Kay R. Hagan, U.S. Senator from the State of North Carolina. The following witnesses provided statements: (1) Donald E. Heller, Dean of the College of Education at Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan; (2) Steven Leath, President, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa; (3) Jim Murdaugh, President, Tallahassee Community College, Tallahassee, Florida; (4) Thomas J. Snyder, President, Ivy Tech Community College, Bloomington, Indiana; and (5) Carol A. Twigg, President and CEO, National Center for Academic Transformation, Miami, Florida. Additional material includes: (1) Response to questions of Senator Enzi by: Donald E. Heller, Steven Leath, Jim Murdaugh, Thomas Snyder, and Carol A. Twigg; and (2) Response to questions of Senator Bennet by: Steven Leath, Jim Murdaugh, and Carol A. Twigg.
Update: Educational Technology Assessments. Report to the Legislature
Author: Small, Dennis
Date: 2018-00-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Educational Technology,Technology Uses in Education,Elementary Secondary Education,State Standards,Computer Assisted Testing,Teaching Methods,School Districts,Technology Integration

Educational technology assessments developed by the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) are voluntarily administered in the elementary, middle, and high school grades. Educators use the assessments to determine if students meet Washington's standards for educational technology. The assessments integrate standards from science, math, health, English language arts, social studies, and the arts. In the 2017-18 school year, school districts provided data on classroom-level use of educational technology assessments. For the first time, districts were also asked to report data about instructional opportunities in educational technology at the elementary, middle, and high school levels. This report highlights the results of the data collected.