ethanporcaro/eric-fulltext-meta huggingface dataset:
Strengthening Education Research and Privacy Protections to Better Serve Students. Hearing before the Committee on Education and the Workforce, U.S. House of Representatives, One Hundred Fourteenth Congress, Second Session (March 22, 2016). Serial Number 114-45
Author: US House of Representatives. Committee on Education and the Workforce
Date: 2016-00-00
Type: Legal/Legislative/Regulatory Materials
Subjects: Educational Legislation,Parent Rights,Privacy,Student Records,Hearings,Laws,Legislation,Federal Government,School Districts,Federal Programs,Educational Research,Educational Technology

This document records testimony from a hearing held to examine strengthening education research and privacy protections to better serve students. Education research has long played an important role in our Nation's classrooms. States and school districts use research to identify teaching and learning strategies that improve classroom instruction and those that do not. Education research also provides parents, teachers, school leaders, and policymakers with the information they need to determine if Federal programs are delivering real results for students and taxpayers. For more than 40 years, the Federal Government has partnered with the private sector and State and local leaders to help facilitate this research. Member statements were provided by: (1) Honorable John Kline, Chairman, Committee on Education and the Workforce, U.S. House of Representatives; and (2) Honorable Robert C. Scott, Ranking Member, Committee on Education and the Workforce, U.S. House of Representatives. Witness statements were provided by: (1) Neil Campbell, Director, Next Generation Reforms, Foundation for Excellence in Education, South Carolina; (2) Jane Hannaway, Professor, McCourt School, Georgetown University; (3) Rachael Stickland, Co-Founder and Co-Chair, Parent Coalition for Student Privacy; and (4) Robert Swiggum, Deputy Superintendent of Technology Services, Georgia Department of Education.
Alaska Performance Scholarship Outcome Report 2015
Author: Rae, Brian
Date: 2015-02-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: High School Graduates,Eligibility,Scholarships,Colleges,Ethnicity,Geographic Regions,Student Characteristics,Enrollment,Academic Persistence,College Attendance,Remedial Instruction,Socioeconomic Status,Gender Differences,Postsecondary Education,College Choice,Employment,College Credits,Career Education,Technical Education,Public Schools,Attendance Patterns,Expenditures,College Freshmen,Student Employment,Racial Differences

The Alaska Performance Scholarship was established in state law in 2011 and first offered to Alaska high school graduates beginning with the class of 2011. Described as &quot;an invitation to excellence&quot; to Alaska's high school students, its goal was to inspire students to push themselves academically in areas that correlate to success in college and career training. That first class of APS-eligible graduates is now four years out of high school and three additional cohorts of APS-eligible graduates have followed. For those AY11 graduates who took advantage of the scholarship to pursue a bachelor's degree, many are now entering their fourth year in college. It is still too early to determine how the scholarship affected these recipients on a long-term basis. However, in this report it is possible to compare APS-eligible students' pursuit of postsecondary studies and their continuance of those studies to that of ineligible students. This report will also consider how subsequent graduating classes have changed in terms of their eligibility for the APS, and their use of it. Recent graduates are likely still deciding how they will make use of the scholarship. The following is appended to the report: (1) Data Sources for the 2015 APS Outcomes Report; (2) Determining APS Eligibility; (3) Participating APS Institutions and Programs of Study; (4) AY14 Alaska Public High School Graduates Attending Postsecondary Education by State Where Enrolled; (5) Glossary; (6) Alaska Regions Referenced in the APS Report. [For the 2014 Report, see ED547259.]
Alaska Performance Scholarship Outcome Report 2016
Author: Rae, Brian
Date: 2016-01-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: High School Graduates,Eligibility,Scholarships,Colleges,Ethnicity,Geographic Regions,Student Characteristics,Enrollment,Academic Persistence,College Attendance,Remedial Instruction,Socioeconomic Status,Gender Differences,Postsecondary Education,College Choice,Employment,College Credits,Career Education,Technical Education,Public Schools,Attendance Patterns,Expenditures,College Freshmen,Student Employment,Racial Differences

Five years ago Alaska's high school graduating class of 2011 became the first with the opportunity to accept the state's &quot;invitation to excellence,&quot; the Alaska Performance Scholarship (APS), to pursue their postsecondary studies. Eligible graduates could receive up to $4,755 per year for up to four years to study at a participating in-state program. Most could pursue either a college degree or a vocational certificate, depending on their high school performance, and had up to six years to make use of the scholarship. Since its inception, over 12,000 public high school graduates from across the state have become eligible to receive the scholarship, with over 5,000 having taken advantage of it. APS-eligible graduates and scholarship recipients are a diverse group, coming from all regions of the state, and from every ethnic group, though not all are represented equally. Nearly one-third of AY15 graduates were eligible to receive the scholarship to pursue a postsecondary certificate, and one-quarter could use the APS to pursue a degree. Of those eligible to use the APS to pursue a degree, over 40% have done so the fall following their graduation from high school. APS-eligible graduates continue to persist in their educational programs at higher rates than their ineligible peers, whether enrolled at an in-state or an out-of-state institution. And, when high school students did not pursue postsecondary studies immediately after their graduation, those APS-eligible individuals were four times more likely to simply delay their enrollment versus foregoing postsecondary studies entirely. APS recipients at the University of Alaska, where over 98% of recipients attended in fall 2015, have a history of taking more credit hours, requiring fewer developmental courses, and persisting in their studies at higher rates than their non-recipient peers. The charts and tables which follow provide insights into the APS-- who became eligible to receive it, who made use of it, and how the performance of APS recipients compared to their non-eligible classmates. The report's layout approximates prior years' reports to aid in comparing the information across years, with key points highlighted in the bulleted narratives. [For the 2015 Report, see ED572227.]
Report on STEM Graduation and Enrollment Trends. January 2015
Author: Jenkins, Rick
Date: 2015-01-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: STEM Education,Enrollment Trends,College Graduates,College Students,Bachelors Degrees,Education Majors,Graduate Study,Associate Degrees,Two Year Colleges,Private Colleges,Nursing Education,Masters Degrees,Doctoral Degrees,Sex,Race,Ethnicity,Age,Public Colleges

The purpose of this report on Arkansas STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) program activity is to inform education and policy makers about the need to prepare and graduate more students with degrees in STEM related fields as defined by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Arkansas is witnessing a significant shortfall in its ability to meet the STEM education needs of its students which will have tremendous implications for the state's scientific and engineering workforce needed for the next decade. Addressing this issue is absolutely essential for the continued economic success of Arkansas. All Arkansas citizens must have the basic scientific, technological, and mathematical knowledge to make informed personal choices, to develop human capital, and to thrive in the increasingly technological global marketplace. The Arkansas Department of Higher Education uses three different sets of CIP Codes for the STEM fields. The most recent was obtained in 2012 with other versions being obtained in 2011 and before 2010. All sets of CIP Codes for the STEM fields were obtained from the website of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) at www.ice.gov. The 2010 and earlier version contains 217 CIP Codes, the 2011 version contains 328 CIP Codes, and the 2012 version contains 422 CIP Codes. Included in this report: (1) all graduate and enrollment data for Academic Year 2010 and before used the 2010 version (217 CIP Codes); (2) all graduate and enrollment data for Academic Year 2011 used the 2011 version (328 CIP Codes); and (3) all graduate and enrollment data for Academic Year 2012 and 2012 Fall (AY2013) through Academic Year 2014 and 2014 Fall (AY2015) used the 2012 version (422 CIP Codes). Therefore, this report is comparable to last year's report. [For the STEM Graduation February 2014 Report, see ED547264.]
Strengthening the Federal Student Loan Program for Borrowers. Hearing of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, United States Senate, One Hundred Thirteenth Congress, Second Session on Examining Strengthening the Federal Student Loan Program for Borrowers (March 27, 2014). Senate Hearing 113-829
Author: US Senate. Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Date: 2016-00-00
Type: Legal/Legislative/Regulatory Materials
Subjects: Federal Programs,Student Financial Aid,Student Loan Programs,Public Agencies,Hearings,Educational Legislation,Federal Legislation,Higher Education,Paying for College,Loan Repayment,Debt (Financial),Accountability,Financial Aid Applicants,Low Income Students,Educational Change

This hearing represents the eighth in the series of Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions' hearings preparing to reauthorize the Higher Education Act. The primary focus of this hearing is strengthening Federal loan programs to ensure they are working well for students and families. Statements from the following committee members are given: (1) Honorable Tom Harkin (Chairman, opening statement); (2) Honorable Lamar Alexander, a U.S. Senator from the State of Tennessee (opening statement); (3) Honorable Jack Reed, a U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island; (4) Honorable Richard J. Durbin, a U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois; (5) Honorable Elizabeth Warren, a U.S. Senator from the State of Massachusetts; (6) Honorable Tammy Baldwin, a U.S. Senator from the State of Wisconsin; (7) Honorable Christopher Murphy, a U.S. Senator from the State of Connecticut; (8) Honorable Al Franken, a U.S. Senator from the State of Minnesota; and (9) Honorable Patty Murray, a U.S. Senator from the State of Washington. Prepared witness statements are given by: (1) James W. Runcie, Chief Operating Officer, Federal Student Aid, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC; (2) Michelle Asha Cooper, B.A., M.P.S., Ph.D., President, Institute for Higher Education Policy, Washington, DC; (3) Deanne Loonin, National Consumer Law Center, Boston, Massachusetts; (4) Roberta L. Johnson, Director of Student Financial Aid, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa; and (5) Marian M. Dill, Director of Student Financial Aid, Lee University, Cleveland, Tennessee. Also included are: (1) Additional comments from Marion Dill in response to Senator Harkin's request (regarding S. 546--Smarter Borrowing Act) and Senator Alexander's requests; and (2) Response by James W. Runcie to questions of Senator Hagan and Senator Warren.
Next Steps for K-12 Education: Implementing the Promise to Restore State and Local Control. Hearing before the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education, Committee on Education and the Workforce, U.S. House of Representatives, One Hundred Fourteenth Congress, Second Session (February 10, 2016). Serial Number 114-38
Author: US House of Representatives. Committee on Education and the Workforce
Date: 2016-00-00
Type: Legal/Legislative/Regulatory Materials
Subjects: Early Childhood Education,Elementary Secondary Education,Federal Legislation,Hearings,Committees,Administrative Organization,Federal State Relationship,School District Autonomy,Program Implementation,Speeches,Accountability,Compliance (Legal),Change Strategies,Federal Regulation,Advocacy,Educational Policy,Educational Legislation

This document records testimony from a hearing held to examine the implementation of the promise to restore state and local control over K-12 education through the Every Student Succeeds Act. The passage of the Every Student Succeeds Act puts states and school districts back in charge of education and includes more than 50 pages of provisions to keep the Department of Education in check. Member statements were presented by: (1) Honorable Todd Rokita, Chairman, Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education, U.S. House of Representatives; and (2) Honorable Marcia L. Fudge, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education, U.S. House of Representatives. Witness statements were presented by: (1) Selene A. Almazan, Esquire, Legal Director, Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates, Inc., Towson, Maryland; (2) Joy Hofmeister, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Oklahoma State Department of Education, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; (3) Kent D. Talbert, Attorney at Law, Law Office of Kent D. Talbert, PLLC, Washington, D.C.; and (4) Paul V. Wilson, Superintendent, Hartselle City Schools, Hartselle, Alabama. Additional submissions include: (1) Ms. Fudge: Letter dated January 21, 2016, from The Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates, Inc.; (2) Chairman Rokita: Letter dated February 10, 2016, from a coalition of groups; (3) Honorable Robert C. Scott, a Representative in Congress from the State of Virginia: National Assessment of Educational Progress (NEAP) test; (4) Mr. Talbert: Supplemental response; (5) Questions submitted for the record by Honorable Suzanne Bonamici, a Representative in Congress from the state of Oregon, and Honorable Jared Polis, a Representative in Congress from the state of Colorado; and (6) Response to questions submitted for the record by Ms. Almazan and Mr. Wilson.
School Choice: Private School Choice Programs Are Growing and Can Complicate Providing Certain Federally Funded Services to Eligible Students. Report to Congressional Requesters. GAO-16-712
Author: US Government Accountability Office
Date: 2016-08-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: School Choice,Private Schools,Educational Vouchers,Federal Aid,Grants,Disabilities,Disadvantaged,Student Participation,Student Characteristics,Public Agencies,Eligibility,Family Income,Equal Education,Elementary Secondary Education,Educational Legislation,Federal Legislation

Voucher and education savings account (ESA) programs fund students' private school education expenses, such as tuition. In school year 2014-15, 22 such school choice programs were operating nationwide, all but one of which was state funded. Under two federal grant programs, one for students with disabilities and one for students from disadvantaged areas, districts are required to spend a proportionate amount of their federal funds to provide equitable services for eligible private school students, and this population includes eligible students in private school choice programs. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) was asked to review these topics. This report examines (1) participation in private school choice programs and the characteristics of students; (2) program requirements for participating private schools; and (3) how the Department of Education (Education) supports districts' efforts to deliver these federally funded services in the context of school choice programs. GAO reviewed relevant federal laws and regulations, surveyed all voucher and ESA programs as of fall 2015, and interviewed Education officials and other stakeholders. GAO also reviewed documents and interviewed state, public school district, and private school officials in a nongeneralizable sample of 10 private school choice programs in four states, selected to include programs with large enrollment and a range of eligibility criteria. The following are appended: (1) Objectives, Scope, and Methodology; (2) Private School Choice Programs' Use of Disability Status and Family Income to Determine Student Eligibility, as of School Year 2014-15; (3) Private Schools Participating in Voucher Programs; (4) Comments from the Department of Education; and (5) GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments.
The Challenge of College Affordability: The Student Lens. Hearing of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, United States Senate, One Hundred Thirteenth Congress, First Session on Examining College Affordability (April 16, 2013). Senate Hearing 113-673
Author: US Senate. Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Date: 2015-00-00
Type: Legal/Legislative/Regulatory Materials
Subjects: Paying for College,Hearings,Federal Legislation,Legislators,Educational Finance,Finance Reform,Financial Policy,Change Strategies,Program Improvement,Federal Programs,Federal Aid,Access to Information,Familiarity,Speeches,Position Papers

In 2012, the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions launched a series of hearings to examine the challenge of college affordability. In the first three hearings, the Committee heard from the administration, from both traditional and online universities and community colleges, from State officials, higher education associations, think tanks and researchers, among others. In this fourth and final hearing Committee members examine this issue through the lens of students. Statements from the following Committee members are given: (1) Honorable Tom Harkin (Chairman, opening statement); (2) Honorable Lamar Alexander, a U.S. Senator from the State of Tennessee (opening statement); (3) Honorable Christopher Murphy, a U.S. Senator from the State of Connecticut; (4) Honorable Tammy Baldwin, a U.S. Senator from the State of Wisconsin; (5) Honorable Patty Murray, a U.S. Senator from the State of Washington; (6) Honorable Sheldon Whitehouse, a U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island; and (7) Honorable Al Franken, a U.S. Senator from the State of Minnesota. Prepared statements were given by the following witnesses: (1) Ethan Senack, Higher Education Associate, U.S. Public Interest Research Group, Washington, DC; (2) Derrica Donelson, Student, Lipscomb University, Nashville, Tennessee; (3) Sara Goldrick-Rab, Associate Professor of Educational Policy Studies and Sociology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin; and (4) Vivica Brooks, Bowie State University, Bowie, Maryland. Additional material includes response to questions of Senator Bennet by Sara Goldrick-Rab, Ph.D. and Vivica Brooks.
Special Education: State and Local-Imposed Requirements Complicate Federal Efforts to Reduce Administrative Burden. Report to Congressional Requesters. GAO-16-25
Author: US Government Accountability Office
Date: 2016-01-00
Type: Legal/Legislative/Regulatory Materials
Subjects: Special Education,State Policy,Local Government,Disabilities,Educational Legislation,Equal Education,Federal Legislation,Job Simplification,Performance Technology,Time on Task,Accountability,Program Implementation,Compliance (Legal),State Standards,State Action,Stakeholders,Technology Integration,Barriers,Administrative Principles,Administrative Policy,Related Services (Special Education)

When the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) was reauthorized in 2004, it included provisions to reduce administrative and paperwork requirements to address concerns about burden. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) was asked to review federal efforts to reduce burden related to meeting IDEA requirements for educating children with disabilities. Congress provided about $11.5 billion in grants in fiscal year 2015 under IDEA Part B to help states and local districts defray the costs of special education services for nearly 6.6 million students ages 3 to 21. This report examines (1) what the Department of Education (Education) and states have done to implement selected IDEA provisions intended to reduce burden; (2) stakeholder views about IDEA's administrative and paperwork requirements; and (3) steps that Education and others have taken to minimize IDEA-related burden. GAO reviewed relevant federal laws and regulations; held nongeneralizable focus groups with state and local administrators and educators from 37 states; visited schools in Clinton, Arkansas and Rochester, New York; and interviewed officials from Education and stakeholder organizations. GAO selected focus group participants, site visit locations, and organizations to highlight a range of demographic and geographic characteristics and obtain perspectives from a variety of stakeholders. The following are appended: (1) Objectives, Scope, and Methodology; (2) Comments from the U.S. Department of Education; and (3) GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments.
Child Care: Information on Integrating Early Care and Education Funding. GAO-16-775R
Author: Alexander, Lamar
Date: 2016-09-14
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: Child Care,Early Childhood Education,Educational Finance,Federal Programs,Federal Aid,State Aid,Grants,Partnerships in Education,Integrated Activities,Interviews,State Officials,Hearings,Preschool Education,Data Collection,Information Dissemination,Shared Resources and Services,Privacy,Expenditures,Resource Allocation

Every year millions of children under the age of 5 participate in federal and state early care and education programs. For fiscal years 2010 to 2015, Congress appropriated almost $48 billion to Head Start and over $31 billion to the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF), the two largest sources of federal funding for early care and education. To better leverage funds, expand services, and make quality improvements, many providers delivering these early care and education services are forming partnerships with other providers or combining funds from federal and other sources. The United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) was asked to examine how state and local grantees are managing multiple funding sources and partnering with other providers to provide quality early care. This report describes what selected state officials and local child care providers identified as: (1) the benefits to integrating funding from federal Head Start, CCDF, and state Pre-K programs and partnering with other providers; (2) factors that adversely affect integration and partnering; and (3) ways these adverse impacts were mitigated. To gather information about the factors that affected integrating funds and partnering, GAO conducted 24 interviews with state officials and local providers in four states (Colorado, Maryland, Washington, and West Virginia). They initially identified states using recommendations from HHS, state officials, and child care stakeholder groups. The final list of states selected was based on the following criteria: (1) participation in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS's) Early Head Start-Child Care Partnerships (EHS-CCP) grant program; (2) experiences with partnering among early care and education programs; (3) variation in licensing standards; and (4) differences in state income eligibility levels for CCDF. 5 In each state, GAO selected 2 to 5 providers for interviews, also based on recommendations of state officials or providers that were integrating funds or partnering as part of their provision of early care and education services. They also conducted interviews with HHS, Education, and representatives of child care stakeholder groups. GAO also reviewed relevant federal laws and regulations, agency documentation, and literature. Enclosure I provides briefing slides. Enclosure II provides comments from the Department of Health and Human Services.