ethanporcaro/eric-fulltext-meta huggingface dataset:
Report on 2004-2005 Distance Education
Author: Nevada System of Higher Education
Date: 2006-01-00
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: Higher Education,Distance Education,Educational Technology,Population Growth,Governing Boards,Access to Education,Data Analysis,Enrollment,Student Characteristics,Guidelines,Educational Policy,Definitions,Enrollment Rate,Internet,Comparative Analysis,Full Time Equivalency,State Colleges,Community Colleges,State Universities

The Nevada System of Higher Education (NSHE) is constantly working to provide and extend educational opportunities to all of the state of Nevada. With the rapid population growth experienced in Nevada, there are an increasing number of students eligible for and participating in some form of higher education. The NSHE employs many successful programs to reach these students; one particularly successful method is through distance education. It is the intent of this report to assist NSHE educators in the understanding of distance education and the issues associated with it. To better understand distance education in the NSHE, the focus of the report turns to the presentation of performance data through Spring 2005. Data and analysis are offered on the following areas: enrollment and student demographics. A list of recommendations that will help NSHE meet the needs of the new reality created by distance education is presented. Board of Regents' &quot;Handbook&quot; Title 4, Chapter 14 Section 11 is appended. (Contains 11 tables and 11 charts.)
Faculty Workload Report, 2004
Author: Nevada System of Higher Education
Date: 2005-06-00
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: State Colleges,Community Colleges,Research Methodology,Definitions,Governing Boards,College Faculty,Faculty Workload,Educational Policy,Personnel Policy,College Instruction,Guidelines,Data Collection,Noninstructional Responsibility,State Universities,Records (Forms)

In the fall of every even numbered year, the Nevada System of Higher Education (NSHE) conducts a faculty workload study. The Fall 2004 Faculty Workload Report marks the first year of information collected under a newly redesigned methodology. During the 2003-04 academic year, the NSHE Board of Regents assembled a faculty workload task force to analyze and address issues related to systemwide faculty workload policies and data reporting. As a result of these efforts, the NSHE adopted a formalized workload policy (see Appendix A) containing expected instructional teaching loads for each type of institution. The Task Force recommended a new research methodology for collecting faculty workload data including: (1) Redesign of workload reporting forms to incorporate new data elements, as well as a common set of definitions; (2) Record out-of-classroom activities by collecting annual output, instead of average hours per week; (3) Report instructional workloads from institutional databases specifically designed to collect faculty workload; and (4) Collect workload information that is validated by faculty, as well as department heads. As a result of this new data collection and reporting methodology, information presented in this report is not comparable to previous years' workload data. As information is collected in future semesters, all attempts will be made to compare workloads as they are measured over time. Appendices include: (1) Faculty Workload Guidelines (&quot;Title 4, Chapter 3, Section 3&quot;); (2) Instructional Workload Form, University &amp; State College; (3) Out-of-Classroom Activities Form, University &amp; State College; (4) Instructional Workload Form, Community College; (5) Out-of-Classroom Activities Form, Community Colleges; (6) Out-of-Classroom Definitions, University &amp; State College; and (7) Out-of-Classroom Definitions, Community Colleges.
Faculty Workload Report, 2006
Author: Nevada System of Higher Education
Date: 2007-05-00
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: State Colleges,Community Colleges,Research Methodology,Definitions,Governing Boards,College Faculty,Faculty Workload,Educational Policy,Personnel Policy,College Instruction,Guidelines,Data Collection,Noninstructional Responsibility,State Universities,Records (Forms),Comparative Analysis

Faculty workload can be separated into two distinct areas: instructional workload (i.e. in-class workload) and out-of-classroom activities. This indicates that at the universities, the state college, and the community colleges the role of full-time faculty extends well beyond classroom instruction. To varying degrees, faculty workload is impacted by requirements to engage in research, develop professionally, participate in public service, as well as contribute to the commitment of shared governance, advise students, and develop new curriculum and programs. Depending upon institutional type and mission, the workload of faculty is further influenced by numerous factors occurring both inside and outside of the classroom. Board policy provides that in the fall of every even-numbered year, the Chancellor's Office shall compile a System report on faculty workloads at Nevada System of Higher Education (NSHE) institutions. Faculty workload is collected from the campuses in two parts: (1) in-class instructional data originating from workload databases and validated by department heads; and (2) out-of-classroom data collected at the individual faculty or department level and validated by department heads. This report presents the faculty workload data for 2006. Appendices include: (1) Faculty Workload Guidelines (Title 4, Chapter 3, Section 3); (2) Instructional Workload Form, University &amp; State College; (3) Out-of-Classroom Activities Form, University &amp; State College; (4) Instructional Workload Form, Community College; (5) Out-of-Classroom Activities Form, Community Colleges; (6) Out-of-Classroom Definitions, University &amp; State College; and (7) Out-of-Classroom Definitions, Community Colleges. [For &quot;Faculty Workload Report, 2004&quot;, see ED513355.]
Faculty Workload Report, 2008
Author: Nevada System of Higher Education
Date: 2008-12-00
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: State Colleges,Community Colleges,Research Methodology,Definitions,Governing Boards,College Faculty,Faculty Workload,Educational Policy,Personnel Policy,College Instruction,Guidelines,Data Collection,Noninstructional Responsibility,State Universities,Records (Forms),Comparative Analysis

Board policy provides that in the fall of every even-numbered year, the Chancellor's Office shall compile a System report on faculty workloads at NSHE (Nevada System of Higher Education) institutions. Faculty workload is collected from the institutions in two parts: (1) in-class instructional data originating from workload databases and validated by department heads; and (2) out-of-classroom data collected at the individual faculty or department level and validated by department heads. This report provides the faculty workload data for 2008. Appendices include: (1) Faculty Workload Guidelines (&quot;Title 4, Chapter 3, Section 3&quot;); (2) Instructional Workload Form, University &amp; State College; (3) Instructional Workload Form, Community College; (4) Out-of-Classroom Activities Form, University and State College; (5) Out-of-Classroom Activities Form, Community Colleges; (6) Out-of-Classroom Definitions, University &amp; State College; and (7) Out-of-Classroom Definitions, Community Colleges. [For &quot;Faculty Workload Report, 2006&quot;, see ED513356.]
Treatment Effect Heterogeneity in a Science Professional Development Initiative: The Case for School Capacity
Author: Bruch, Sarah
Date: 2010-00-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: Science Tests,Inservice Teacher Education,Science Instruction,Program Evaluation,Outcomes of Education,Institutional Characteristics,Educational Environment,Predictor Variables,Science Achievement,Adoption (Ideas),Science Curriculum,Curriculum Implementation,Teacher Behavior,Educational Policy,Intervention,Educational Assessment,Evaluation Methods,Barriers,Program Implementation,Urban Schools,Elementary School Students,Elementary School Teachers,Teacher Surveys,Comparative Analysis

This study focuses on how the treatment effects of a teacher professional development initiative in science differed by school capacity. In other words, the authors are primarily concerned with treatment effect heterogeneity. As such, this paper complements ongoing evaluation of the average treatment effects of the initiative over time. The research question considered here is: Did existing school capacity account for heterogeneity in teacher and student outcomes? That is, do treatment effects differ for schools with low, average, or high capacity? Specifically, the authors consider two outcomes: teachers' reported adoption of the targeted curriculum and students' subsequent achievement scores on standardized science tests. Although their primary focus is on student outcomes, teacher behaviors are informative because they represent a necessary mechanism in the causal process that is likely influenced by school capacity. There are clear policy implications of the demonstrated importance and variability of school capacity. The results implore more attention to be paid to the school pre-conditions underlying educational interventions, particularly given that the average school in this study did not have the capacity to successfully respond to this intensive professional development initiative. There are two clear implications for educational evaluation. One is to direct attention to rigorous causal evaluation of school capacity building, especially given that capacity can trump the interventions more commonly subjected to experimental testing. Indeed, the current study's design does not allow the authors to make any casual claims about what works in that arena. The other implication is that more effectiveness evaluations should explicitly consider school capacity as an important mediating dimension. The authors have demonstrated in this study that school capacity as conceptualized in the school organizations tradition is a meaningful tool for opening up the &quot;black box&quot; of a randomized professional development evaluation and their methodology would be relatively easy to replicate. (Contains 1 table and 3 figures.)
Using Randomized Clinical Trials to Determine the Impact of Reading Intervention on Struggling Adolescent Readers: Reports of Research from Five Nationally Funded Striving Readers Grants
Author: Loadman, William
Date: 2010-00-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: Exhibits,Literacy,Grants,Intervention,Reading Difficulties,Adolescents,Middle Schools,High Schools,Reading Instruction,Grade 8,Grade 12,Computer Software,Research Design,Evaluation Methods,Models,Reading Achievement

In 2005, the U.S. Department of Education awarded eight Striving Readers grants to projects around the country. The goal of Striving Readers is to improve literacy skills and achievement for struggling readers in middle and high school and to increase the research base using randomized clinical research to address improvement in adolescent literacy instruction. This session will present results to date from the five Striving Readers sites that use READ 180. (Contains 2 exhibits.)
PA Student Achievement Rises for 8th Straight Year: 2010 Student Achievement Fast Facts
Author: Pennsylvania Department of Education
Date: 2010-00-00
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: Educational Improvement,Federal Programs,Academic Achievement,Educational Indicators,Achievement Gains,Educational Finance,State Aid,Mathematics Achievement,Reading Achievement

This paper presents some facts about Pennsylvania's student achievement for 2010. These facts are: (1) Eighty two percent of Pennsylvania schools are meeting all of their Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) targets--up from 78% of schools last year; (2) Pennsylvania students exceed state academic goals and achieve double digit gains since 2002; (3) Since 2002, Pennsylvania has increased state investments to schools by $4.3 billion. That investment is paying off with fewer students at below basic, and more students on grade level; and (4) Despite increased resources and greater student achievement there is still a lot of work left to do.
The Cost of Higher Education in Pennsylvania. Report to the Pennsylvania State Board of Education
Author: Tandberg, David, Comp.
Date: 2008-11-00
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: Higher Education,Income,Educational Attainment,Debt (Financial),Paying for College,Barriers,Access to Education,Academic Persistence,School Holding Power,Graduation Rate,Surveys,Student Financial Aid,Comparative Analysis,Student Costs

In September of 2008, the Pennsylvania Board of Education requested that the Deputy Secretary for Postsecondary and Higher Education in the Department of Education conduct research to document whether, and to what extent, the cost of postsecondary education in the state of Pennsylvania constitutes a significant barrier to college access, retention, and graduation. This report is a partial response to that request. It contains data gathered from a variety of sources, including the College Board, PHEAA, the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Peterson's Financial Aid Survey, the U.S. Census Bureau, and the annual National Association of State Student Grant &amp; Aid Programs (NASSGAP) Survey. The Pennsylvania Board of Education will collect additional information by means of a survey of Pennsylvania residents that focuses on how families pay for college. Particular emphasis will be placed on the total amount of debt families incur to send students to college, and on the degree to which these debt levels affect going to college or subsequent employment decisions. This report is organized into four main sections. First, data are presented on the cost of attending college in Pennsylvania, and on families' ability to pay for college. Second, the report places Pennsylvania in the national context by comparing the cost of attending college in Pennsylvania and the debt load of Pennsylvania students to the national average and nine comparison state averages. Likewise, personal income data in Pennsylvania are compared nationally as well. Finally, relevant information garnered from the 2006 &quot;A Rising Tide&quot; report on Pennsylvania higher education is reviewed. Appendices include: (1) The Cost of Education for PASSHE Students, Community College Sponsored Students, and Community College Non-Sponsored Students; (2) Educational Attainment and Personal Income; and (3) Debt Load Compared to Personal Income. (Contains 11 tables and 26 footnotes.)
4-Year Cohort Graduation Rate: Overview
Author: Pennsylvania Department of Education
Date: 2010-07-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Postsecondary Education,High Schools,Charter Schools,Graduation Rate,Federal Legislation,Educational Improvement,Federal Programs,School Districts,Secondary Education,Educational Indicators,High School Graduates,Accountability,Student Characteristics,Educational Attainment,Information Management,Data

Federal law requires Pennsylvania, and all other states, to transition to a new calculation method for determining high school graduation rates. Beginning in 2012, using graduation data from the Classes of 2010 and 2011, the &quot;4-Year Cohort Graduation Rate&quot; calculation will replace the &quot;4-Year Leaver Graduation Rate&quot; calculation. The new methodology will be used to determine high school and district Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) status for all students and for every measurable subgroup. The &quot;cohort&quot; calculation method generates a different rate than the &quot;leaver rate calculation&quot; currently in use. The cohort calculation is almost always a lower percentage of graduates based on a different calculation methodology. It is important for stakeholders to understand, and to be able to communicate, why the publicly-reported numbers may look different even though there is no fundamental or underlying change in a school's circumstances. The difference is the result of the method used to calculate the rate. The new methodology provides a more uniform and precise measure of the high school graduation rate--one which can then be used for comparison with other states. Accurate data from the local education authority (LEA) and charter schools is key to successful implementation. Improved data collection, reporting and analysis that links data systems from preschool through postsecondary education will allow for a more accurate picture upon which to base decisions at the district, school and student levels. The methodology will improve everyone's understanding of the characteristics of the students who do not earn regular high school diplomas, or who take longer than four years to graduate. The 4-Year Cohort Graduation Rate will help inform efforts to ensure all Pennsylvania students are prepared for postsecondary education and the workforce. This paper summarizes information and lists resources to assist LEAs and charter schools in understanding the 4-Year Cohort Graduation Rate, the use of the rate for accountability purposes, and the transition steps to fully reporting and utilizing the new graduation calculation. (Contains 1 footnote and 4 resources.)
4-Year Cohort Graduation Rate: FAQ
Author: Pennsylvania Department of Education
Date: 2010-10-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Educational Development,Individualized Education Programs,Graduation Rate,Educational Improvement,Federal Programs,Credits,Educational Indicators,Cohort Analysis,High School Equivalency Programs,Attendance,Residence Requirements,Special Education,Transfer Policy,Transfer Students,State Departments of Education,Data,High School Graduates

This paper offers a list of questions and corresponding answers about the 4-year cohort graduation rate. Answers to the following questions are presented: (1) Why don't GED (General Educational Development) students count as graduates?; (2) How does a district code students who have moved out of state? How should a district code a student who transfers to another district?; (3) Will there ever be an instance when a student is attributed only to the state?; (4) Is the &quot;Full Academic Year&quot; determination relevant to the 4-Year Cohort Graduation Rate calculations?; (5) If a student, not previously attending a public school, enters school and is placed in 9th grade due to credits and then the next year is moved to grade 12. Is that student still attributed to their original cohort? This student would be coming from the justice system and is chronologically older than his/her earned credits indicate; (6) Explain how students with IEPs (Individualized Education Programs), who remain in a program until they are 21, but never graduate, will affect the 4-Year Cohort Graduation Rate; (7) Explain why a senior, who fails to graduate on time and comes back for the 5th year and does not graduate the second time, is attributed twice; (8) Why does a student who leaves the district and never shows up in another Pennsylvania district remain in the cohort of the sending district?; (9) How should students who are disabled and remain enrolled until age 21 be coded?; (10) How would a school/district code a student that registers for school, but does not attend?; (11) How will the appeals process work if a student is attributed to a school or district and that district does not believe the student is a resident of their district?; (12) When does a student officially become part of the 9th grade cohort? Is it at the end of their 8th grade year, or the beginning of their 9th?; (13) How will adjudicated youth be attributed for purposes of graduation rate calculations?; (14) What is the definition of on-time graduation? What does it mean?; (15) Seniors in Special Education meet all requirements for graduation in four years but their IEP allows them to stay; they can choose to stay. These seniors will not be counted as graduating on time. Will it count against districts' graduation rate?; (16) Why hasn't PDE (Pennsylvania Department of Education) applied for approval to use extended graduation rate for AYP (Adequate Yearly Progress) purposes?; (17) When do four years officially end; the last day of school or before the start of the next school year?; and (18) What if a student transfers in and has already been held back for one grade?
2009 National Survey on Drug Use and Health. Highlights. Fact Sheet
Author: Office of National Drug Control Policy
Date: 2010-09-16
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: Youth Problems,Substance Abuse,Drug Use,National Surveys,Incidence,Adolescents,Adults,Trend Analysis,Drug Abuse,Drug Therapy,Marijuana,Stimulants,Narcotics,Cocaine,Grades (Scholastic),Intervention

The National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) is the primary source of information on the prevalence, patterns, and consequences of substance abuse among people age 12 and older. The survey is conducted every year by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). The 2009 NSDUH, released  September 16, 2010, shows that drug use in the United States increased in 2009, reversing downward trends since 2002. This paper presents an overview of the findings of the 2009 National Survey on Drug Use and Health. The Obama Administration's 2010  National Drug Control Strategy is outlined. (Contains 7 figures.)
Back to School: Keeping Our Children Safe, Healthy, and Drug-Free in the New School Season. Fact Sheet
Author: Office of National Drug Control Policy
Date: 2010-08-00
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: Prevention,Child Welfare,Child Health,Incidence,Drug Abuse,Secondary School Students,Drug Therapy,Parent Influence,Parent Child Relationship,Interpersonal Communication,Drinking,Alcohol Abuse,Marijuana,Narcotics

Results of the 2009 "Monitoring the Future" (MTF) study document the disturbing prevalence among teens of abuse of prescription and over-the-counter drugs. The data show, for example, that seven of the substances most commonly abused by high school seniors are pharmaceuticals. Many parents believe they are powerless to influence their teens. However, research makes clear that parents remain the single most powerful influence in their kids' lives. This paper offers some tips for parents on how to talk to their teens about drug use. (Contains 4 figures.)