ethanporcaro/eric-fulltext-meta huggingface dataset:
Checking in Update: More Assignments from Real Classrooms. K-12 Practice. Equity in Motion Series
Author: Dabrowski, Joan
Date: 2016-04-00
Type: Guides - Classroom - Teacher
Subjects: Middle School Students,Reading Assignments,Writing Assignments,Literacy,Models,Common Core State Standards,Alignment (Education),Discussion (Teaching Technique),Scaffolding (Teaching Technique),Difficulty Level,Student Motivation,Learner Engagement,Thinking Skills

This follow-up report provides a revised Literacy Assignment Analysis Framework that incorporates discussion and teacher scaffolding. This new framework serves as a guidepost for studying sets of assignments across multiple days or weeks within a single classroom, school, or district. A closer look at more assignments from real classrooms provides a helpful lens for thinking about five key areas related to standards implementation: (1) Common Core Alignment; (2) Discussion; (3) Teacher Scaffolding; (4) Text and Task Complexity; and (5) Motivation and Engagement. The assignments represent a range of middle school grades and subjects, and were collected from schools with different student demographics. They fall within the low, mid, and high range on the framework. Assignments that fall within the high range are worthy of careful consideration as they--and &quot;assignments like them&quot;--hold much promise for middle school students. For each assignment, the authors first note how it scores on the framework, and then list the details that support the scoring. In the second half of the annotation, particular key areas of the assignment that stood out are highlighted, and questions are posed for consideration. While not every assignment addresses every indicator in the framework, practitioners must consider how often students work on extended tasks that align with the rigor of the Common Core; gather and cite textual evidence; think at high cognitive levels when they read, discuss, and write about texts; and receive support from teachers as they engage in interesting and meaningful tasks. Contains notes. [This report was written with Keith Dysarz. For the first report in the &quot;Equity in Motion&quot; series, see &quot;Checking In: Do Classroom Assignments Reflect Today's Higher Standards?&quot; (ED566668).]
GPE 2020: Improving Learning and Equity through Stronger Education Systems. Strategic Plan 2016-2020
Author: Global Partnership for Education (GPE)
Date: 2016-00-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Partnerships in Education,Global Approach,Developing Nations,Strategic Planning,Educational Practices,Academic Standards,Educational Planning,Educational Policy,Policy Formation,Educational Finance,Alignment (Education),Sustainable Development,Educational Objectives,Inclusion,Equal Education,Lifelong Learning,Educational Opportunities,Efficiency,Educational Quality,Educational Indicators,Progress Monitoring,Accountability

The Global Partnership for Education (GPE) addresses the most significant education challenges faced by developing countries through supporting governments to improve equity and learning by strengthening their education systems. GPE is a global fund and a partnership focused entirely on education in developing countries. The partnership has a unique role: agreeing upon standards for education planning and policy-making and mobilizing development financing from public and private donors around the world to support and monitor the implementation of those plans. GPE 2020 is a five-year strategic plan commencing January 1, 2016, and ending December 31, 2020. It aligns GPE's vision and mission to the Global Goals for Sustainable Development. In doing so, GPE specifically recognizes that education is pivotal to the achievement of all of the other Global Goals. GPE therefore adopts as their vision for GPE 2020 the following: &quot;To ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all.&quot; In order to realize this mission GPE 2020 recognizes it's mission as &quot;Mobilization of global and national efforts to contribute to the achievement of equitable, quality education and learning for all, through inclusive partnership, a focus on effective and efficient education systems and increased financing.&quot; Three clear and ambitious goals have been chosen which encapsulate what must be done to stop children and youth being left out or left behind because education systems are nor working as they should: (1) Improved and more equitable student learning outcomes through quality teaching and learning; (2) Increased equity, gender equality and inclusion for all in a full cycle of quality education, targeting the poorest and most marginalized, including by gender, disability, ethnicity and conflict or fragility; and (3) Effective and efficient education systems delivering equitable, quality educational services for all. Core Indicators highlight the key results GPE 2020 hopes to achieve. They are part of a comprehensive set of indicators by which GPE will monitor progress over the next five years. An annex presents GPE Results and Indicators Framework.
Guidelines for Transitional Education Plan Preparation
Author: Lattanzio, Raphaëlle Martinez
Date: 2016-05-00
Type: Guides - General
Subjects: Transitional Programs,Planning,Guidelines,Foreign Countries,Program Content,Policy Formation,Program Design,Costs,Financial Support,Program Evaluation,Global Approach,Crisis Management,Public Policy,Access to Education,Government Role,Partnerships in Education,International Cooperation,Data Analysis,Data Collection,Educational Policy

The &quot;Guidelines for the Transitional Education Plan Preparation&quot; are the result of an extensive consultation process and the product of fruitful guidance and contributions from key partners active in the field of education in emergencies and protracted crises. The new global education agenda 2030 places strong emphasis on countries affected by adverse situations. It urges governments to put in place robust and responsive policies, strategies, and systems to ensure quality education in challenging contexts, and calls upon the international community to &quot;build back better&quot; by providing coordinated support and investing where education needs are the most acute. The agenda expressly recognizes that the largest education gaps exist in crisis situations, noting that it is &quot;critical to develop education systems that are more resilient and responsive in the face of conflict, social unrest, and natural hazards--and to ensure that education is maintained during emergency, conflict, and postconflict situations.&quot; In response to the call for greater effort and investment in crisis-affected and challenging situations, these guidelines were designed to assist countries in preparing a transitional education plan (TEP). They first provide an overview of the essential characteristics of a good quality TEP, followed by a presentation of the main steps in the plan preparation process. They are accompanied by a selection of helpful resources that are mapped according to the plan preparation steps. For countries that are candidates for GPE funding, a second accompanying document, Guidelines for Transitional Education Plan Appraisal, must be used as part of the GPE grant process to assess the extent to which the TEP responds to expected requirements before its endorsement by development partners, including the civil society. The following are appended: (1) Main components of a context analysis in challenging contexts; and (2) Checklist of key education system performance analysis components and corresponding education indicators.
Rising Tide II: Do Black Students Benefit as Grad Rates Increase?
Author: Nichols, Andrew Howard
Date: 2016-03-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: African American Students,Graduation Rate,College Students,Racial Differences,White Students,Mentors,Intervention,Public Colleges,Institutional Characteristics

&quot;Rising Tide II: Do Black Students Benefit as Grad Rates Increase?&quot; looks at a decade of graduation rates for African American students at four-year, public institutions that improved student success during the past decade. It shows that while a majority (almost 70 percent) of institutions we examined improved graduation rates for black students, those gains haven't been large or fast enough to close gaps between black and white students. In fact, in many cases, these gaps have widened. This paper--a companion to &quot;Rising Tide: Do College Grad Rate Gains Benefit All Students?&quot;--finds that, among institutions that have improved overall graduation rates from 2003 to 2013, more than half of them (53 percent) didn't make the same gains for black students as they did for white students--widening gaps between groups. Worse still, at almost one-third (or 73) of the colleges and universities that improved overall student success, graduation rates for black students were flat or declining. The report lists 27 schools that have witnessed declining graduation rates for black students and significantly widening gaps. To illustrate how schools can raise graduation rates for all students while closing completion gaps between black and white students, our report features a list of 52 institutions that have achieved these twin goals. We hope other institutions will learn from these institutions to identify and institute practices that work best for their campuses and their students. Also included are: (1) &quot;Mentoring Toward Success&quot; (Mandy Zatynski) which describes Texas Tech University's Mentor Tech program; and (2) &quot;No One Strategy for Success, But Rather, A Continuous Line of Support&quot; (Mandy Zatynski) which highlights Ohio State University's long-standing Young Scholar's Program. Supplemental tables are appended.
Results for Learning Report 2014-15: Basic Education at Risk
Author: Bernard, Jean-Marc
Date: 2014-12-00
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: Developing Nations,Access to Education,Elementary Education,Budgets,Educational Finance,Graduation Rate,Secondary Education,Gender Differences,At Risk Students,Tables (Data),Barriers,Data Collection,Public Policy,Socioeconomic Status,Dropouts,Teacher Student Ratio,Teacher Competencies,Global Approach,Grants,Program Development,International Cooperation,Partnerships in Education,Foreign Countries

The 2014/2015 Results for Learning Report: Basic Education at Risk examines the progress achieved by Global Partnership for Education (GPE) partner developing countries over the period 2008-2012. Universal primary education has never been so close, yet there are still 58 million children of primary school age who do not go to school around the world, and 41 million of them are in partner developing countries. The report cautions that if progress and investments are not maintained, the hard-won achievements could be reversed. Particularly, basic education is losing priority with the share of budgets spent on primary education falling gradually. The following are among the report's key findings. In GPE partner developing countries: (1) 73% of children complete primary school; (2) 22% of children of primary school age are out of school; (3) 80% of children who complete primary school transition to secondary school; (4) 89 girls for every 100 boys complete primary school; and (5) 82 girls for every 100 boys complete lower secondary school. In GPE developing country partners, there is progress in reaching out-of-school children and getting more children to complete primary school but the goal of Universal Primary Education remains distant. Access to pre-primary and lower secondary education has improved but these levels of education still have a long way to go. Education is slowly becoming more equitable but some inequalities are hard to tackle. The GPE has increased its support, especially for fragile and conflict-affected countries (FCAC) partners but education as a priority in global aid has declined. Finally, the lack of data in the education sector remains a challenge but the Global Partnership for Education is increasing its focus on, and support for, data. Supplementary tables, figures, and graphs are provided in an annex. [For the 2013 Results for Learning Report, see ED566674.]
Results for Learning Report 2013: Facing the Challenges of Data, Financing and Fragility
Author: Bernard, Jean-Marc
Date: 2013-11-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: Foreign Countries,Developing Nations,Partnerships in Education,Global Approach,Preschool Education,Elementary Education,Secondary Education,Access to Education,Out of School Youth,Educational Environment,Outcomes of Education,Conflict,Financial Support,Educational Finance,Macroeconomics,Educational Policy,Technical Assistance,Grants,Womens Education

The &quot;Results for Learning Report&quot; reveals that there has been significant progress in education in developing-country partners of the Global Partnership for Education (Global Partnership or GPE) since 2000: (1) More children are going to school and completing primary education in these countries; (2) Children have a better chance of gaining access to lower-secondary school now than ever before; (3) Efforts to improve the access of girls to school have paid off; (4) The public spending on education in developing-country partners has increased during the last decade; (5) The lack of data of acceptable quality is a major problem in many developing-country partners; (6) Official development assistance (ODA) is being reduced in all sectors, but the reduction is occurring at a more rapid pace in education; (7) GPE developing-country partners are facing a learning crisis; (8) In 2011, 42 million children of primary-school age were still out of school in developing-country partners; and (9) Lower-secondary education is expanding more quickly than primary education. This report provides an analysis of education data and education outcomes to people engaged in or following the work of the Global Partnership for Education (the Global Partnership or GPE). It aims at contributing directly to the dialogue on the development and monitoring of sound education sector policies within the partnership. By focusing the attention of partners on the remaining education challenges that need to be addressed through sector policy development, implementation, and monitoring, the report represents an opportunity to take stock of progress and set a course for improving on the results that have already been achieved. A map of the Global Partnership for Education, along with supplemental tables, are provided in an annex. [For the 2012 Results for Learning Report, see ED566652.]
Nursing Educational Programs
Author: California Community Colleges, Chancellor's Office
Date: 2014-00-00
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: Community Colleges,Nursing Education,Enrollment Trends,Educational Finance,Financial Support,Budgets,Tables (Data),Resource Allocation,Grants,Federal Legislation,Labor Force Development,Labor Legislation

The California Community Colleges serve more than 2.1 million students each year and is the largest system of higher education in the nation. The state's 112 community colleges are charged with providing workforce training, basic skills education, and preparing students to transfer to four-year universities. Seventy-six California community colleges operate registered nursing programs, enrolling a statewide total of 13,026 full-time-equivalent students (FTES). Enrollments have increased by about 31 percent since the 2008-09 academic year due to the development of new programs, expansion of enrollment capacity through partnerships with the healthcare industry, and federal and state funded programs and grants. Colleges with nursing programs receive funding through general apportionment/FTES. This report presents information on categorical funding awarded through an application process to the community colleges for nursing programs in fiscal year 2012-13. Also included in this report is a summary on Nursing Program Support provided in the Budget Act of 2012 to expand community college nursing enrollments and to improve student retention (required by Provision (23) of Item 6870-101-0001 of the Budget Act of 2012). Contains the following tables: (1) Funds Allocated for Enrollment Growth Grants including FTES and Additional Enrollments; (2) Assessment and Retention Funds Allocated; (3) Workforce Investment Act Funds Nursing Education Initiative Phase II; (4) Community College Associate Degree Nursing (RN) 2012-13 Retention/Completion Data; (5) Data for Colleges that Used Assessment Testing as Part of the Selection Process; (6) National Council Licensing Exam--Registered Nursing Community College Pass Rates; and (7) 67 Percent Limit on Part-time Faculty in California Community Colleges.
Minimum Qualifications for Faculty and Administrators in California Community Colleges [Tenth Edition]
Author: California Community Colleges, Chancellor's Office
Date: 2014-00-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Community Colleges,College Faculty,Administrators,College Administration,Teacher Qualifications,Administrator Qualifications,Intellectual Disciplines,Academic Degrees,State Regulation

This 10th edition of &quot;Minimum Qualifications for Faculty and Administrators in California Community Colleges&quot; is an update of the disciplines lists including those adopted by the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges at their regularly scheduled meeting on Nov. 2, 2013. It incorporates changes that resulted from recommendations from the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges and its delegates, and a comprehensive review of regulations regarding the minimum qualifications and disciplines lists. This change amends the previous edition. It is intended to be effective immediately and should be employed as appropriate in each community college district. A summary of the changes to the Master's List and the new category of disciplines requiring a Specific Bachelor's or Associate Degree List are noted. [For the ninth edition, see ED546759.]
Program and Course Approval Handbook. Fifth Edition
Author: California Community Colleges, Chancellor's Office
Date: 2013-09-00
Type: Guides - Non-Classroom
Subjects: Community Colleges,College Programs,Courses,College Curriculum,Curriculum Evaluation,Noncredit Courses,Curriculum Development,Standards,Criteria,Program Proposals,Associate Degrees,Certification,High School Equivalency Programs

This &quot;Program and Course Approval Handbook&quot; assists California Community College (CCC) administrators, faculty, and staff in the development of programs and courses and the submission of these proposals for review by the Chancellor's Office. By law, the Chancellor is required to prepare and distribute a handbook for program and course approval (California Code of Regulations, Title 5, §55000.5). The Chancellor has delegated these responsibilities to the Academic Affairs Division of the Chancellor's Office. This fifth edition of the &quot;Program and Course Approval Handbook&quot; replaces all previous editions. Additionally, this Handbook replaces the Course Standards Handbook published by the Educational Standards and Evaluation Division of the Chancellor's Office in July 1987 as well as the User Guide for the CCC Curriculum Inventory published by the Academic Affairs Division of the Chancellor's Office in September 2010. This Handbook provides college faculty and administrators with the following: (1) Chancellor's Office procedures for the submission, review, and approval of programs and courses on a statewide basis; (2) A framework for consistent documentation of the content and objectives of programs and courses; and (3) Understanding of uniform practices in curriculum development as established in the field of curriculum design and instructional technology and as recommended by the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges. This Handbook is organized into four sections: Section 1: Chancellor's Office Curriculum Review: discusses the transition from a form-based to an action-driven CCC Curriculum Inventory system and details how to develop and submit curriculum proposals for Chancellor's Office review. Section 2: Comprehensive Curriculum Topics: provides information relevant to credit and noncredit curriculum development. Section 3: Credit Curriculum: describes standards and criteria procedures for credit programs and courses, and instructions for completing proposals for review by the Chancellor's Office using the CCC Curriculum Inventory. Section 4: Noncredit Curriculum: describes standards and criteria for noncredit programs and courses, including procedures and instructions for completing proposals for review by the Chancellor's Office using the CCC Curriculum Inventory. The following appended proposal development guides are included: (1) Credit Course; (2) Associate Degree for Transfer (ADT); (3) Associate Degree (A.A. or A.S.); (4) Certificate of Achievement (Credit); (5) Noncredit Course; (5) Certificate of Competency (Noncredit); (6) Certificate of Completion (Noncredit); and (7) Adult High School Diploma (Noncredit).
Disabled Student Programs and Services Report, 2012
Author: California Community Colleges, Chancellor's Office
Date: 2013-08-16
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: Community Colleges,Disabilities,Youth Programs,Student Personnel Services,Academic Accommodations (Disabilities),State Legislation,Governing Boards,Educational Policy,Enrollment,School Holding Power,Academic Persistence,Graduation Rate,College Students,Outcomes of Education,Data Analysis,College Credits,Noncredit Courses,Academic Degrees,Educational Certificates,Labor Force Development,Vocational Education,Academic Achievement,Disproportionate Representation

The California Community Colleges (CCC) serve more than 2.4 million students and comprises the largest system of higher education in the nation. Each of the 112 colleges in all 72 districts use state funding allocated for Disabled Student Programs and Services (DSPS) to assist it in providing support services and educational accommodations to students with disabilities so they can have full and equitable access to the community college experience. In addition, most colleges include specialized instruction as part of their DSPS program. This report was written in response to Education Code (EC) section 67312(b), which requires the board of governors to report every two years to the Governor and the education policy committees of the Legislature, on its system for evaluating &quot;state-funded programs and services for disabled students on each campus at least every five years.&quot; This report will focus solely on the analysis of the outcome data reported to the Chancellor's Office Management Information Systems (MIS) division by the 112 community colleges as required by EC 67312(a)(4). These data were collected from all 112 colleges and is presented in the report in system wide aggregated summaries. The data compiled for this report show that while students with disabilities served by DSPS are underrepresented in the college population, in comparison to their nondisabled peers, they: (1) Take and complete both credit and noncredit courses at greater rates; (2) Show greater persistence and essentially the same retention level (with the notable exceptions of basic skills and workforce preparation classes); and (3) Are more successful at both CCC degree (19 percent vs. 12 percent) and certificate attainment (7 percent vs. 4 percent).