ethanporcaro/eric-fulltext-meta huggingface dataset:
Annual Statistical Report of the Public Schools of Arkansas and Education Service Cooperatives [2013-2014]
Author: Arkansas Department of Education
Date: 2015-01-15
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: Public Schools,Charter Schools,Expenditure per Student,Educational Finance,Attendance Patterns,Financial Support,Teacher Salaries,Elementary Secondary Education,Teacher Certification,School Districts,Geographic Location,Debt (Financial),Taxes,Income,State Aid,Funding Formulas,Enrollment,Adult Education,Professional Development,Academically Gifted,Nontraditional Education,English Language Learners,Lunch Programs,Special Education,Vocational Education,Food Service,Early Childhood Education,Magnet Schools,Costs,Expenditures,Maintenance,Transportation,Student Personnel Services,Salaries

In compliance with the provisions of A.C.A.§§6-20-2201 et seq., the Annual Statistical Report of the Public Schools of Arkansas, Public Charter Schools, and Education Service Cooperatives, 2013-2014 Actual and 2014-2015 Budgeted, (ASR) is presented here. The Rankings of Selected Items of the Public Schools of Arkansas, 2013-2014 Actual, (Rankings) are also included. The appendix in the ASR includes Arkansas Public School Computer Network (APSCN) coding specifications for each line item in the report. The information contained in the report was obtained from the Annual Financial Report (2013-2014 actual) submitted in Cycle 9, due August 31, 2014, and Budget (2014-2015 budgeted) submitted in Cycle 1, due September 30, 2014. The information contained in this report has not been audited. The school districts are listed according to Local Education Agency (LEA) number in the Rankings report, and are ranked from highest to lowest on the following data: (1) Per Pupil Expenditures; (2) Average Daily Attendance (ADA); (3) Average Daily Membership (ADM); (4) K-12 Licensed Full-Time Equivalent (FTE); (5) Average Salary of K-12 Licensed FTE; (6) Licensed FTE; and (7) Average Salary of Licensed FTE.
Automatic for the Borrower: How Repayment Based on Income Can Reduce Loan Defaults and Manage Risk
Author: Baum, Sandy
Date: 2014-03-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Risk,Income,Loan Repayment,Consortia,Student Financial Aid,Loan Default,Costs,Fees,Financial Problems,Credit (Finance),Advocacy,Organizations (Groups),Federal Aid,Graduation,Employers,Accountability,Salaries,Risk Management

When borrowers default on a federal student loan, it can have catastrophic consequences. Their credit scores drop dramatically, severely curtailing their ability to afford a home or a car, and even limiting their ability to sign up for utilities. The cost of their loan rises as late fees pile up. Moreover, the federal government can garnish borrowers' wages, withhold taxes, and sue them in order to obtain the money owed. It can take years for borrowers' credit and finances to recover. This paper is the culmination of work by a consortium of five student-aid advocacy and research organizations-- HCM Strategists, the Institute for Higher Education Policy (IHEP), the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators (NASFAA), New America (NA), and Young Invincibles (YI)--with assistance from the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities (APLU), Committee for Economic Development (CED), the National Campus Leadership Council (NCLC), and the National College Access Network (NCAN). This consortium's members have come together around an idea that they believe will fix the student repayment process and reduce the risk of unaffordable loan payments and default. The consortium calls it &quot;auto-IBR&quot;. The proposals contained in this paper reflect research conducted by and discussions between members of the consortium. This plan would: (1) Automatically enroll all federal student loan borrowers in a repayment plan based on income (hereafter &quot;auto-IBR&quot;) upon leaving school; (2) Automatically deduct student loan payments through employer withholding; and (3) Implement institutional accountability measures based on borrowers' ability to repay their debt. A glossary is provided.
Impacts of Social-Emotional Curricula on Three-Year-Olds: Exploratory Findings from the Head Start CARES Demonstration. Executive Summary. OPRE Report 2014-78
Author: Hsueh, JoAnn
Date: 2014-12-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: Early Intervention,Preschool Education,Social Development,Emotional Development,Preschool Children,Program Effectiveness,Problem Solving,Disadvantaged Youth,At Risk Students,Teacher Competencies,Interpersonal Competence,Teacher Student Relationship,Social Behavior,Teaching Methods,Classroom Environment,Behavior Problems,Academic Ability,Knowledge Level,Language Skills,Reading Skills,Mathematics Skills,Thinking Skills,Age Differences,Emergent Literacy,Comparative Analysis,Experimental Groups,Control Groups,Student Characteristics,Mixed Age Grouping,Theories,Faculty Development,Play,Statistical Analysis,Effect Size,Burnout,Measures (Individuals),Likert Scales,Teacher Characteristics

In recent years, interest has increased in preschool programs that promote low-income children's early learning and development. Although research in this area has focused mostly on 4-year-olds, a growing number of 3-year-olds attend publicly funded preschool. In fact, in Head Start--a federally funded early childhood education program--the percentage of 3-year-olds rose from 24 percent in 1980 to 40 percent in 2013. Increased attention has also been focused on identifying promising strategies to enhance young children's social, emotional, and behavioral development. A number of mostly small-scale studies demonstrate that classroom-based approaches can improve these outcomes for 4-year-old children. However, a notable gap in the evidence base is whether the benefits of these social-emotional strategies can extend to younger children in the classroom. This report presents exploratory impact findings for 3-year-old children from the Head Start CARES (Classroom-based Approaches and Resources for Emotion and Social skill promotion) demonstration. The Head Start CARES demonstration was a large-scale randomized controlled trial implemented in Head Start centers across the country. The demonstration tested the effects of three classroom-based approaches that each had a distinct theory, developed by the Head Start CARES research team, of how to improve children's social-emotional competencies. Called &quot;enhancements&quot; because they were intended to complement and to enrich existing Head Start classroom practices, the three approaches are The Incredible Years Teacher Training Program, or &quot;The Incredible Years&quot;; Preschool PATHS (Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies), or &quot;PATHS&quot;; and a one-year version of Tools of the Mind focused on play, or &quot;Tools of the Mind--Play.&quot; The demonstration was conceived and sponsored by the Office of Head Start and the Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation in the Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. MDRC, a nonprofit, nonpartisan education and social policy research organization, conducted the demonstration in collaboration with MEF Associates and several academic partners. [For the full report, see ED558517.]
Impacts of Social-Emotional Curricula on Three-Year-Olds: Exploratory Findings from the Head Start CARES Demonstration. Research Snapshot. OPRE Report 2014-78
Author: Hsueh, JoAnn
Date: 2014-12-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: Early Intervention,Preschool Education,Social Development,Emotional Development,Preschool Children,Program Effectiveness,Problem Solving,Disadvantaged Youth,At Risk Students,Teacher Competencies,Interpersonal Competence,Teacher Student Relationship,Social Behavior,Teaching Methods,Classroom Environment,Behavior Problems,Academic Ability,Knowledge Level,Language Skills,Reading Skills,Mathematics Skills,Thinking Skills,Age Differences,Emergent Literacy,Comparative Analysis,Experimental Groups,Control Groups,Student Characteristics,Mixed Age Grouping,Theories,Faculty Development,Play,Statistical Analysis,Effect Size,Burnout,Measures (Individuals),Likert Scales,Teacher Characteristics

This report presents exploratory impact findings for 3-year-olds from the Head Start CARES demonstration, a large-scale randomized controlled trial implemented in Head Start centers for one academic year across the country. The study was designed primarily to test the effects of the enhancements on 4-year-olds, but it also provides an opportunity to explore their impacts on a limited number of outcomes for 3-year-olds who were in the classrooms that included both 3- and 4-year-olds. Key findings in the study include: (1) The enhancements improved teachers' social-emotional instruction and improved teacher reports of 3-year-olds' social behaviors and closeness with their teachers; (2) The positive impacts of the enhancements as a group seem to be driven primarily by The Incredible Years; and (3) As a group, the enhancements did not affect 3-year-olds' pre-academic skills, as reported by teachers. [For the full report, see ED558517.]
State Education Policy: Reporter Guide
Author: Wieder, Ben
Date: 2014-06-18
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: State Policy,Educational Policy,Policy Formation,State Legislation,Legislators,Elementary Secondary Education,Higher Education,Reports,Information Dissemination

The education laws and policy decisions made in the state capitol might seem far removed from the realities of the schools, but their impact hits much closer to home than one might realize. Keeping track of those state debates as they occur is a good way to keep teachers, administrators, and local parents in-the-loop about changes that might be coming, and give them an opportunity to contribute their opinions when they still can have an effect. A great complaint of any state reporter is that there is seldom enough time to report on the real-world impact of proposed legislation during the legislative session. There is not much time to document the impact of legislation after it becomes law, either. That is where the state reporter can fill a crucial gap. It is important that politicians, policy makers, school administrators, and parents understand the actual effect of new legislation and policy changes. By connecting the dots between state policy and the local schools, a state reporter can help accomplish that by anticipating disruptive changes and ensuring that laws are being implemented as they were designed to be.
Beyond the Yellow Bus: Promising Practices for Maximizing Access to Opportunity through Innovations in Student Transportation. Policy Brief 2014
Author: University of California, Berkeley. Center for Cities and Schools
Date: 2014-00-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Transportation,Elementary Secondary Education,Access to Education,Cost Effectiveness,Agency Cooperation,Educational Policy,Privatization,Child Safety,Financial Support,Attendance,Costs,Conservation (Environment),Barriers,Web Sites,Interviews,Mass Media,Case Studies,Educational Finance,State Policy,Public Policy,Innovation,Local Government,School Districts

Access to safe, affordable, and convenient transportation shapes the &quot;geography of opportunity&quot; for many children and youth. This study looks at how ?localities across the country are implementing new and innovative alternative approaches to student transportation that expand regional transportation access for K-12 students, improve cost-effectiveness, and leverage inter-agency partnerships beyond the traditional yellow school bus. [For the full report &quot;Beyond the Yellow Bus: Promising Practices for Maximizing Access to Opportunity through Innovations in Student Transportation,&quot; see ED558542.]
Report of the NASFAA Task Force on Student Loan Indebtedness
Author: National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators (NASFAA)
Date: 2013-00-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Student Loan Programs,Loan Repayment,Debt (Financial),College Students,Trend Analysis,Access to Information,Responsibility,School Policy,Public Policy,Student Needs,Student Financial Aid,Educational Finance,Educational Equity (Finance),Educational Administration,Web Sites

In light of increasing concern about student loans, debt levels, and rising default rates, which coincide with worries about college costs, affordability, and transparency, the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators (NASFAA) convened a task force in 2012 to study this issue and make recommendations for improvement. NASFAA's Task Force on Student Indebtedness was charged with examining current trends and making recommendations aimed at improving the system for students and institutions throughout all stages of borrowing, including: pre-borrowing, in-school, and repayment. NASFAA's Board of Directors reviewed and approved the eight recommendations featured in this report. Taken together, these eight recommendations address shortcomings in the current student loan system at each level of borrowing: preborrowing, in-school, and repayment. They were each designed with the goal of achieving: (1) More informed borrowers; (2) More responsible borrowing; (3) Tools or frameworks for institutions to assist borrowers; (4) More borrowers successfully repaying their loans; and (5) Federal and institutional policies that reinforce all of the above. In contrast to the recent loan program changes which arose strictly out of fiscal concerns, these recommendations are intended to serve as starting points for meaningful policy discussions surrounding borrowing and student loan reform. The hope is that these discussions will lead toward better designed loan programs that serve the needs of today's borrowers as they pursue their educational goals. [Members of the task force include: Chuck Knepfle (Chair), Brenda Brown, Chris Christensen, Dan Davenport, Ron Day, Pam Fowler, Anna Griswold, Rita Grogan, Jane Hickey, Kevin Jensen, Craig Munier, David Page, Bernie Pekala, Tom Sakos, Yara Santana, Rick Shipman, and Joan Zanders.]
The Campus-Based Formula. NASFAA Task Force Report
Author: National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators (NASFAA)
Date: 2014-00-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: Student Financial Aid,Federal Aid,Resource Allocation,Funding Formulas,Student Loan Programs,Work Study Programs,Federal Programs,Higher Education,Federal Legislation,Educational Legislation,Undergraduate Students

The primary purpose of the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators (NASFAA) Campus-Based Aid Allocation Task Force was to examine the formula by which congressional appropriations for the Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant (FSEOG), Federal Work-Study (FWS), and Perkins Loan programs are distributed to schools, and, in consultation with appropriate groups, develop proposals for changes to the allocation formula as part of the Association's reauthorization recommendations. The task force was charged to produce proposals for incorporation into NASFAA's recommendations for the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act that: (1) More accurately and equitably reflect the comparative need of the student populations of schools applying for campus-based aid allocations; (2) Evaluate the efficacy of current reallocation rules for released funds; (3) Give new participating schools a fairer chance to obtain funding; and (4) Include an assessment of the shifts in funding among current program participants that would result from recommended formula change(s). The guiding principles of the Campus-Based Aid Allocation Task Force were to: (1) Promote fairness and equity for students across all sectors of postsecondary education; (2) Promote policies that address the needs of disadvantaged students; (3) Recommend policies that accommodate the diversity of academic delivery models; and (4) Support recommendations with research and data analysis. Based on the research and discussions the task force developed, and the NASFAA Board accepted and endorsed, the following recommendations are detailed in this report: (1) Reconstruct the income bands used to determine institutional need for campus-based programs to more accurately report student need; (2) Eliminate the Base Guarantee and include phase-in protection so that no institution has a decrease or increase of more than 10% per year; (3) Restructure the FSEOG formula to be based on the amount of Pell funding received by the institution, including a phase-in provision whereby no institution has a decrease or increase of more than 10% per year; and (4) Increase the percent of self-help assumed in the undergraduate institutional need calculation of the Federal Work-Study and Perkins Loan formulas to 35% self-help, including a phase-in provision whereby no institution has a decrease or increase of more than 10% per year. The task force conducted its work between October 2013 and June 2014, and its recommendations were accepted and approved by the NASFAA Board of Directors in June 2014.
Basic Facts about Low-Income Children: Children 6 through 11 Years, 2013. Fact Sheet
Author: Jiang, Yang
Date: 2015-01-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: Low Income Groups,Poverty,Family Income,Incidence,Age Differences,Racial Differences,Immigrants,Family Characteristics,Place of Residence,Health Insurance,Parents,Children

Children under 18 years represent 23 percent of the population, but they comprise 33 percent of all people in poverty. Among all children, 44 percent live in low-income families and approximately one in every five (22 percent) live in poor families. Similarly, among children in middle childhood (age 6 through 11 years), 45 percent live in low-income families and 22 percent live in poor families. Being a child in a low-income or poor family does not happen by chance. Parental education and employment, race/ethnicity, and other factors are associated with children experiencing economic insecurity. This fact sheet describes the demographic, socioeconomic, and employment characteristics of children in middle childhood and their parents. It highlights the important factors that appear to distinguish low-income and poor children in this age group from their less disadvantaged counterparts. The following questions are addressed: (1) How many children in middle childhood (age 6 through 11 years) in the United States live in low-income families?; (2) Has the percentage of children in middle childhood living in low-income and poor families changed over time?; (3) How do children in middle childhood compare to the rest of the population?; (4) Does the percentage of children in low-income families vary by children's age?; (5) Does the percentage of children in middle childhood in low-income families vary by race/ethnicity?; (6) Does the percentage of children in middle childhood in low-income families vary by children's age?; (7) What are the family characteristics of low-income and poor children in middle childhood?; (8) Does the percentage of children in middle childhood in low-income families vary by where they live?; and (9) Are children in middle childhood in low-income families covered by health insurance?
Basic Facts about Low-Income Children: Children under 6 Years, 2013. Fact Sheet
Author: Jiang, Yang
Date: 2015-01-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: Low Income Groups,Poverty,Family Income,Incidence,Age Differences,Racial Differences,Immigrants,Family Characteristics,Place of Residence,Health Insurance,Parents,Young Children

Children under 18 years represent 23 percent of the population, but they comprise 33 percent of all people in poverty. Among all children, 44 percent live in low-income families and approximately one in every five (22 percent) live in poor families. Young children under age 6 years appear to be particularly vulnerable, with 48 percent living in low-income and 25 percent living in poor families. Being a child in a low-income or poor family does not happen by chance. Parental education and employment, race/ethnicity, and other factors are associated with children experiencing economic insecurity. This fact sheet describes the demographic, socio-economic, and geographic characteristics of young children and their parents. It highlights important factors that appear to distinguish low-income and poor children in this age group from their less disadvantaged counterparts. The following questions are addressed: (1) How many young children under age 6 years in the United States live in low-income families?; (2) Has the percentage of young children living in low-income and poor families changed over time?; (3) How do young children compare to the rest of the population?; (4) Does the percentage of children in low-income families vary by children's age? (5) Does the percentage of young children in low-income families vary by race/ethnicity?; (6) Does the percentage of young children in low-income families vary by parents' nativity?; (7) What are the family characteristics of low-income and poor young children?; (8) Does the percentage of young children in low-income families vary by where they live?; and (9) Are young children in low-income families covered by health insurance?
Measuring Excellence in Access and Diversity
Author: National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators (NASFAA)
Date: 2014-00-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: Student Financial Aid,Access to Education,Student Diversity,Higher Education,Institutional Evaluation,Self Evaluation (Groups),Student Costs,Measurement,Federal Aid

By the 2015-16 award year, a college ranking system, known as the Postsecondary Institution Ratings System (PIRS), will likely be in place to evaluate institutions on a number of factors. While it has not yet been determined what metrics will be used for evaluation, possibilities include: number of students receiving the Federal Pell Grant, average cost of attendance, student loan debt, graduation and transfer rates, and commitment to access and diversity. The goal of PIRS is to tie institutional allocation of financial aid funds to these ratings by 2018. NASFAA leadership asked the Access and Diversity Committee (ADC) to conduct research on the feasibility of such an approach and to determine if there are tools currently available to assist an institution with their own evaluation prior to the development and implementation of a Federal rating tool. With the goal of informing how access and diversity might be measured in such a system, the information discussed in this paper reflects the challenges of defining diversity, what the research says about access, what schools are currently doing and the tools that are available to assist an institution with their own assessment of their commitment to access and diversity. This paper argues that a self-evaluation guide, developed by NASFAA and its members, could be a useful tool for campus administrators who have the time and resources to benefit from it. In addition, utilizing the self-evaluation guide to give a preliminary view of PIRS rankings would be especially relevant and timely for campuses.