ethanporcaro/eric-fulltext-meta huggingface dataset:
Strained Schools Face Bleak Future: Districts Foresee Budget Cuts, Teacher Layoffs, and a Slowing of Education Reform Efforts
Author: Kober, Nancy
Date: 2011-06-00
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: School Restructuring,Educational Finance,School Districts,Educational Change,Job Layoff,Retrenchment,Financial Problems,Fiscal Capacity,School Surveys,Federal Aid,Fringe Benefits,Budgeting,Dislocated Workers,Economic Impact,Educational Policy

Many school districts had to cope with shrinking budgets this past school year, but the effects of these cuts were cushioned to some extent by the availability of federal economic stimulus money. In 2009 and 2010, school districts received about $80 billion from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). These funds were intended to stave off teacher layoffs, stabilize declining state and local education budgets, and blunt other negative effects of the economic downturn for schools. In the summer of 2010, districts received an additional $10 billion through the Education Jobs legislation to save or create education jobs for school year 2010-11. Now that the ARRA and Education Jobs funds are nearly depleted, what do school districts expect their budgets to look like for school year 2011-12? This report by the Center on Education Policy (CEP), an independent non-profit organization, describes the fiscal condition of school districts for school year 2010-11 and the anticipated fiscal condition for school year 2011-12, the extent to which ARRA and Education Jobs funds are making up for funding shortfalls, and the types of cuts being made to balance district budgets. The authors' data were drawn from responses to a survey administered to a nationally representative sample of school districts in the winter and spring of 2011. This is the second CEP report on the financial status of school districts and their implementation of ARRA; the first was released in July 2010. Two other CEP reports have addressed state fiscal conditions and state ARRA implementation. Seven key findings are evident from the district survey data: (1) A grim situation is expected to worsen in the coming school year; (2) Districts are compensating by cutting jobs; (3) No type of district appears to be immune from budget reductions or staff cuts; (4) Funding cuts are hampering progress on school reform; (5) Most districts have reached the dreaded &quot;funding cliff&quot; with no ARRA funds left to help ease funding shortfalls in school year 2011-12; (6) Most of the districts that received extra funds through ARRA for the federal Title I and Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) programs used at least some of these funds to save or create teaching or other staff jobs; and (7) Districts believe they are better off for having received ARRA and Education Jobs funding. (Contains 8 tables, 5 figures and 3 footnotes.)
Understanding and Implementing Section 2141(c) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Policy-to-Practice Brief
Author: Potemski, Amy
Date: 2009-08-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: Federal Legislation,Educational Improvement,Federal Programs,School Districts,State Departments of Education,Educational Indicators,Educational Assessment,Alignment (Education),Program Implementation,Performance Contracts,Achievement Gains,Accountability,Theory Practice Relationship

According to Section 2141(c) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as reauthorized by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), local education agencies (LEAs) that fail to meet annual measurable objectives and make adequate yearly progress (AYP) for three consecutive years must enter into an agreement with the state education agency (SEA) to determine the most effective use of Title II, Part A funds. As part of this agreement, the SEA will &quot;develop, in conjunction with the local educational agency, teachers, and principals, professional development strategies and activities, based on scientifically based research, that the local educational agency will use to meet the annual measurable objectives...and require such agency to utilize such strategies and activities&quot; [NCLB, Section 2141(C)(1)]. This brief reviews the provisions of Section 2141 of ESEA and lays out the steps that SEAs should consider for meeting its requirements. Included are examples of steps states have taken in meeting the Section 2141 requirements. The brief also presents some points to consider when developing Section 2141(c) agreements with LEAs.
Educating English Language Learners: Building Teacher Capacity. Roundtable Report
Author: Ballantyne, Keira Gebbie
Date: 2008-00-00
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: English (Second Language),Second Language Instruction,Second Language Learning,Limited English Speaking,Preservice Teacher Education,Faculty Development,General Education,Pedagogical Content Knowledge,Expertise,Politics of Education,English,Annotated Bibliographies,Required Courses,Educational Certificates,State Regulation

In the Fall of 2007, the U.S. Department of Education's Office of English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and Academic Achievement for Limited English Proficient Students (OELA) established the following strategic priority: Develop policy and program recommendations to improve the professional development of English language learner content teachers. The National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition (NCELA) assisted OELA by forming a panel of experts and convening a &quot;Roundtable on Teacher Education and Professional Development of ELL Content Teachers&quot;. The panel met on January 24, 2008, in Washington, DC, to discuss the substance and format of this report. This report is comprised of three volumes: (1) Teacher Education and Professional Development for Mainstream Teachers of English Language Learners; (2) Annotated Bibliography; and (3) State Requirements for Pre-service Teachers of ELLs. Roundtable Panelists are appended. Individual volumes contain references and footnotes.
Postsecondary Education Options for Students with Intellectual Disabilities. Research to Practice. Issue 45
Author: Hart, Debra
Date: 2006-08-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Postsecondary Education,Mental Retardation,Students,Higher Education,Dual Enrollment,Enrollment,Outcomes of Education,Disabilities

Exiting high school is an exciting and tense experience for all students and families. But when students with intellectual disabilities consider what will happen next, the possibility of college is usually not promoted as a viable option. This needs to change. Receiving a college education and experiencing that very exciting time in life is as beneficial for students with intellectual disabilities as for students without. The growth that students experience in college can be measured in a number of areas, including academic and personal skill-building, employment, independence, self-advocacy, and self-confidence. For students with intellectual disabilities, this growth is also reflected in increased self-esteem when they begin to see themselves as more similar to than different from their peers without disabilities. Being part of campus life, taking classes (whether auditing or for credit), and learning to navigate a world of high expectations develops the skills needed for successful adult life. When individuals keep college in the mix of possibilities as students with intellectual disabilities explore which steps to take after high school, it makes the statement that they believe in their potential for success. This brief presents the following information about postsecondary education for students with intellectual disabilities: (1) Definitions of "postsecondary education" and "intellectual disability"; (2) An overview of postsecondary education options; and (3) Research findings on current knowledge of postsecondary education options and outcomes, with recommendations for improving access to postsecondary education. A bibliography is included. (Lists 6 web resources.)
Race to the Top: Reform Efforts Are Under Way and Information Sharing Could Be Improved. Report to Congressional Committees. GAO-11-658
Author: Scott, George A.
Date: 2011-06-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: Federal Programs,Educational Change,Grants,Educational Finance,Federal Aid,Information Dissemination,Competition,Investment,Public Agencies,Barriers

In the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Congress required the U.S. Department of Education (Education) to make education reform grants to states. Education subsequently established the Race to the Top (RTT) grant fund and awarded almost $4 billion to 12 states related to developing effective teachers and leaders, improving the lowest-achieving schools, expanding student data systems, and enhancing standards and assessments. This report, prepared in response to a mandate in the act, addresses (1) actions states took to be competitive for RTT grants; (2) how grantees plan to use their grants and whether selected nongrantees have chosen to move forward with their reform plans; (3) what challenges, if any, have affected early implementation of states' reform efforts; and (4) Education's efforts to support and oversee states' use of RTT funds. GAO (Unites States Government Accountability Office) analyzed RTT applications for 20 states, interviewed state officials, visited 4 grantee states, analyzed states' planned uses of grant funds, and interviewed Education officials. GAO recommends that the Secretary of Education (1) facilitate information sharing among grantees on additional promising practices and (2) provide nongrantee states with related information. Education agreed with the first recommendation and partially agreed with the second; GAO modified that recommendation to clarify how Education can provide that information to nongrantee states. Appended are: (1) Scope and Methodology; (2) Race to the Top and Investing in Innovation Grant Funds; (3) Criteria Used to Guide the Selection of States to Receive RTT Grant Awards; (4) Comments from the U.S. Department of Education; and (5) GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments. (Contains 6 tables, 2 figures, and 25 footnotes.)
Review of &quot;Florida Formula for Student Achievement: Lessons for the Nation&quot;
Author: Mathis, William
Date: 2011-06-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: Educational Change,Educational Policy,Educational Assessment,Public Schools,Educational Improvement,Scores,Reading Achievement,Mathematics Achievement,Rewards,Merit Pay,Graduation Requirements,Educational Environment,Ethics,Outcomes of Education,Politics of Education,Grants,Expenditure per Student,Low Achievement,Teacher Qualifications,School Choice,High Stakes Tests,Evidence,Misconceptions

Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush and the Foundation for Excellence in Education have embarked on a well-funded campaign to spread selected Florida education reforms to other states. These reforms include assigning letter grades to schools, high-stakes testing, promotion and graduation requirements, bonus pay, a wide variety of alternative teacher credentialing policies, and various types of school choice mechanisms. This policy potpourri was recently presented by Gov. Bush in Michigan, and the documents used allow for a concrete consideration and review. Regrettably, Bush's Michigan speech relies on a selective misrepresentation of test score data. Further, he offers no evidence that the purported test score gains were caused by the recommended reforms. Other viable explanations, such as a major investment in class-size reduction and a statewide reading program, receive no or little attention. Moreover, the presentation ignores less favorable findings, while evidence showing limited or negative effects of the proposed strategies is omitted. Considering the overwhelming evidence that retention is ineffective (if not harmful), it is troubling to see Mr. Bush endorse such an approach. Finally, Florida's real problems of inequitable and inadequate education remain unaddressed.
Revenues & Expenses, 2004-2009. NCAA[R] Division III Intercollegiate Athletics Programs Report
Author: Fulks, Daniel L., Comp.
Date: 2010-08-00
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: Expenditures,College Athletics,Income,Intercollegiate Cooperation,National Surveys,Glossaries,Educational Finance,Trend Analysis,Team Sports,Gender Differences

This report provides summary information concerning revenues and expenses of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division III athletics programs for the fiscal years 2004 through 2009. It is the result of surveys conducted during the fall of each of those years. Although similar studies have been conducted for the NCAA since 1969, significant changes in data collection and reporting render previous reports non-comparable to those of 2004 and beyond. The survey was distributed to all Division III member institutions, including provisional members, with a resulting usable response rate of close to 85%. A glossary is included. (Contains 36 tables.) [For related reports, see "Revenues & Expenses, 2004-2009. NCAA[R] Division I Intercollegiate Athletics Programs Report" (ED521371) and "Revenues & Expenses, 2004-2009. NCAA[R] Division II Intercollegiate Athletics Programs Report" (ED521373).]
Race and Gender Demographics, 2009-10: NCAA[R] Member Institutions' Personnel Report. The NCAA Minority Opportunities and Interests Committee's Annual Study
Author: Irick, Erin, Comp.
Date: 2011-02-00
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: College Athletics,Athletic Coaches,Administrators,Demography,Ethnicity,Race,Males,Females,Minority Groups,Whites,African Americans,American Indians,Alaska Natives,Asian Americans,Hispanic Americans,Pacific Americans,Hawaiians,Multiracial Persons

The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) compiled this statistical report regarding the ethnicity and gender demographic information of athletics administrators and coaches in intercollegiate athletics at its member institutions. The proceeding charts, graphs and tables show the results from the 2009-10 academic year. Also included in this report for comparison are the data from 1995-96, the first year the demographic information was collected. The 1995-96 data are used as the baseline year for comparison in each race demographics report. Data for this report are divided into three categories: athletics administrators, head coaches and assistant coaches. All three groups are then organized by overall figures, percentages and then a divisional breakdown. Included within each of these categories are tables that provide data with the historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs) excluded. For all overall and divisional categories, both with and without HBCUs, a specific minority breakdown for American Indian/Alaskan Native, Asians, Hispanics, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, Other Minority and Two or More Races is also provided. (Contains 195 tables.) [For a related report, "Race and Gender Demographics, 2009-10. NCAA[R] Member Conferences' Personnel Report," see ED521375.]
Revenues & Expenses, 2004-2009. NCAA[R] Division I Intercollegiate Athletics Programs Report
Author: Fulks, Daniel L., Comp.
Date: 2010-08-00
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: Expenditures,College Athletics,Income,Intercollegiate Cooperation,National Surveys,Glossaries,Educational Finance,Trend Analysis,Team Sports,Gender Differences

This report provides summary information concerning revenues and expenses of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I athletics programs for the fiscal years 2004 through 2009. It is the result of surveys conducted during the fall of each of those years. Although similar studies have been conducted for the NCAA since 1969, significant changes in data collection and reporting render those reports non-comparable to those of 2004 and beyond. The survey was distributed to all Division I member institutions, including provisional members, with a usable response rate of close to 100 percent. A glossary is included. (Contains 132 tables.) [For related reports, see "Revenues & Expenses, 2004-2009. NCAA[R] Division II Intercollegiate Athletics Programs Report" (ED521373) and "Revenues & Expenses, 2004-2009. NCAA[R] Division III Intercollegiate Athletics Programs Report" (ED521369).]
Supporting Individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorders: Quality Employment Practices. The Institute Brief. Issue Number 25. ICI Professional Development Series
Author: Kurtz, Alan
Date: 2008-12-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Job Applicants,Employment Practices,Autism,Economically Disadvantaged,Job Development,Employment,Pervasive Developmental Disorders,Disabilities,Inclusion,Asperger Syndrome,Supervisors,Augmentative and Alternative Communication

It has been known for decades that individuals with autism spectrum disorders (ASD), including those with significant impairment or who have behaviors that others find challenging, can work when they are given appropriate supports (Smith, Belcher, & Juhrs, 1995). It is also clear that individuals with ASD can benefit from employment. Benefits include improved emotional state, greater financial gain, decreased anxiety, greater self-esteem, and greater independence (Mawhood & Howlin, 1999; Hurlbutt & Chalmers, 2004). Nonetheless, employment outcomes for individuals with ASD have traditionally been poor (Bilstedt, Gilberg, & Gilberg, 2005; Howlin, Goode, Hutton, & Rutter, 2004). Even those who do find work are often underemployed or do not hold onto jobs for a long period of time (Mawhood & Howlin, 1999). It is a mistake to assume that these historically poor employment outcomes for individuals with ASD mean that most cannot work. People with ASD can work when employment staff help them find the right job match and when appropriate and individualized supports are built in. This paper presents several considerations for helping individuals with ASD find jobs. A list of job development strategies that may be particularly useful and productive to prioritize when job searching with and for job seekers with ASD is also presented.
Revenues & Expenses, 2004-2009. NCAA[R] Division II Intercollegiate Athletics Programs Report
Author: Fulks, Daniel L., Comp.
Date: 2010-08-00
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: Expenditures,College Athletics,Income,Intercollegiate Cooperation,National Surveys,Glossaries,Educational Finance,Trend Analysis,Team Sports,Gender Differences

This report provides summary information concerning revenues and expenses of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division II athletics programs for the fiscal years 2004 through 2009. It is the result of surveys conducted during the fall of each of those years. Although similar studies have been conducted for the NCAA since 1969, significant changes in data collection and reporting render those reports non-comparable to those of 2004 and beyond. The survey was distributed to all Division II member institutions, including provisional members, with a resulting usable response rate of close to 100%. A glossary is included. (Contains 79 tables.) [For related reports, see "Revenues & Expenses, 2004-2009. NCAA[R] Division I Intercollegiate Athletics Programs Report" (ED521371) and "Revenues & Expenses, 2004-2009. NCAA[R] Division III Intercollegiate Athletics Programs Report" (ED521369).]
Vocational Rehabilitation Services Received by Youth with Autism: Are They Associated with an Employment Outcome? Research to Practice. Issue 48
Author: Lugas, Jaime
Date: 2010-11-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: Employment,Autism,Vocational Rehabilitation,Youth,Disabilities,Counseling

While youth with autism represent a small percentage of all vocational rehabilitation (VR) closures, the number who closed out of VR more than tripled between 2003 and 2008 (see "Institute for Community Inclusion Data Note 26"). As increasing numbers of youth with autism are accessing VR services, it is important to understand how they are using these services and the relationship of these services to outcomes and costs. The purpose of this brief is to: (1) Determine differences in services received by youth with autism compared to youth with other disabilities; (2) Identify services that are most closely associated with an employment outcome for youth with autism; and (3) Establish if large percentages of the group are receiving these successful services. (Contains 3 tables.)
Race and Gender Demographics, 2009-10. NCAA[R] Member Conferences' Personnel Report
Author: Irick, Erin, Comp.
Date: 2011-02-00
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: Ethnicity,Race,American Indians,Colleges,Racial Differences,Data Collection,Gender Differences,Demography,Administrators,College Athletics,Minority Groups,Alaska Natives,Asian Americans,Hispanic Americans,Whites,Black Colleges,African Americans,Females,Multiracial Persons,Hawaiians,Pacific Americans

This study is designed to collect data on the racial and gender breakdown of personnel at the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) member conference offices. The NCAA Minority Opportunities and Interests Committee and the NCAA Committee on Women's Athletics will use this data for comparison to similar data that were collected during the 1998-99 academic year. Data were collected for the following job titles: conference president, commissioner, associate commissioner, assistant commissioner, director, associate director, assistant director, supervisor/coordinator of officials, administrative assistant, conference secretary, intern, student assistant, and other. The tables in this report compare the percent of Blacks and females in each job category and illustrate the number and percent of NCAA conference staff members by job title, race and gender for 1998-99 and 2009-10 overall and by division with historically black conferences excluded for comparison. The race categories for the 2009-10 data collection include White, Black and have expanded the Other Minority category into Asian, Hispanic/Latino, American Indian/Alaskan Native, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, Two or More Races and Other. These eight ethnicity categories used in this report are the same categories that are used in the NCAA Membership Forms, NCAA Student-Athlete Ethnicity Report and Race and Gender Demographics of NCAA Member Institutions' Athletics Personnel Report. These categories were expanded from the 1998-99 data collection that included the race categories White, Black and Other Minority. (Contains 12 charts and 50 tables.) [For a related report, "Race and Gender Demographics, 2009-10: NCAA[R] Member Institutions' Personnel Report. The NCAA Minority Opportunities and Interests Committee's Annual Study," see ED521370.]