ethanporcaro/eric-fulltext-meta huggingface dataset:
Observations on School District and Service Consolidation in Michigan. Working Paper #17
Author: Arsen, David
Date: 2011-02-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: Educational Finance,School Districts,Cost Effectiveness,School District Reorganization,Expenditure per Student,Costs,Charter Schools,Politics of Education

School district consolidation enjoys a unique status among strategies to reduce education costs. It promises to cut spending, without lowering service quality, by improving the efficiency of service delivery. In contrast to strategies aimed at lowering employee salaries or benefits--which are hard to avoid when cutting spending in any labor intensive service--consolidation's savings are often presented as essentially free, with no obvious losers. School district consolidation is not new. Indeed Michigan (and the United States) experienced a great wave of school consolidation after World War II. In fact, the number of school districts fell by about 85 percent between 1940 and 1970; the pace of consolidation has since slowed considerably. In this paper, the author offers some observations intended to inform the discussion of school consolidation in Michigan. He will start by reviewing the very limited evidence on the magnitude of potential consolidation savings in Michigan. Next, he will suggest factors that policymakers ought to consider when assessing whether consolidation is appropriate. He will argue that, while there are untapped consolidation savings, the magnitude of those savings is surely smaller than commonly imagined and some are concentrated in unexpected places. Finally, he will turn from economic to political considerations and ask who should decide where consolidation takes place. (Contains 16 footnotes.) [For its related report, &quot;Reaction to &quot;Observations on School District and Service Consolidation in Michigan. Working Paper #17&quot;. Working Paper #18,&quot; see ED537162.]
Reaction to &quot;Observations on School District and Service Consolidation in Michigan.&quot; Working Paper #17 by David Arsen. Working Paper #18
Author: Shakrani, Sharif M.
Date: 2011-01-22
Type: Opinion Papers
Subjects: Program Effectiveness,School Districts,Counties,School District Reorganization,Regression (Statistics),Educational Finance,Cost Effectiveness,Economic Impact

The author's &quot;School District Consolidation Study in 10 Michigan Counties&quot; study was published in August, 2010 by The Education Policy Center at Michigan State University. It was intended to measure the financial impact of consolidation of schools at the county level akin to other states like Virginia, Florida and Maryland. The study was recently critiqued by his colleague at Michigan State University, Dr. David Arsen in a paper entitled, &quot;Observation on School District and Service Consolidation in Michigan&quot; (January, 2011). Professor Arsen concludes that the most striking feature of the study is its assumption that the rate of saving would be the same for every district. A careful reading of the paper would clearly indicate this is not the case. The author specifically states that the estimated saving percentage &quot;may not apply equally to all size districts.&quot; The average numbers may over-estimate the saving for school districts with 10,000 or more students and under-estimate the savings for districts with 1,500 or less students. The linear straight line regression equation is intended as an overall estimate for the 10 counties studied, and by its mathematical traits will over estimate for some districts and under estimate for others. There are virtually no comprehensive and scientifically designed research studies on the financial impact of consolidation at the county level. Most of the studies deal with the specific consolidation of few districts in rural areas, so it is not possible to judge which estimates are accurate and which are not. In most cases judgments are made based on emotions by proponents, or opponents, of school consolidation. [For the report, &quot;Observations on School District and Service Consolidation in Michigan. Working Paper #17,&quot; see ED537161.]
Implementing Statewide Longitudinal Student Data Systems: Lessons from the States. Working Paper #22
Author: Anagnostopoulos, Dorothea
Date: 2011-08-29
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: Academic Achievement,Accountability,Stakeholders,Elementary Secondary Education,Federal Legislation,State Departments of Education,Management Information Systems,Longitudinal Studies,Educational Legislation,Capacity Building,Governance,Interprofessional Relationship,State Legislation

Providing accurate and useful information on student achievement is a rising challenge for state educational agencies. With the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) in 2001, such challenges have become more pressing. A centerpiece of the educational accountability movement, NCLB has prompted states to improve their reporting on student outcomes. Although not mandated by the law, in recent years states have actively moved to revamp their student data systems (SDS) to better address both federal mandates and inform local stakeholders. Many states now utilize unique statewide student identifiers and seek to collect longitudinal data on students' progress throughout their K-12 educational system and beyond. To date, however, there remains considerable variation across states in quality and comprehensiveness of student data systems. How then can states successfully develop and establish their statewide longitudinal student data systems? This report provides an overview of longitudinal student data systems (LSDS) across the 50 states before focusing on cases of the creation, implementation and expansion of SDS in three states. &quot;Emergent State&quot; has just begun assigning unique student identifiers to state assessment data. &quot;Accelerated State&quot; has rapidly developed and implemented a longitudinal student data system and is moving towards including data warehousing capabilities. &quot;Established State&quot; has a comprehensive K-20 longitudinal student data system that includes a data warehouse. These cases illuminate the challenges and successes that state educational agencies have encountered in their efforts to develop, implement and expand LSDS. The report finds that the state education agencies faced similar challenges in the following areas: (1) building state agency capacity; (2) developing reciprocal and efficient relationships with districts and schools; (3) clarifying governance of the data system and ownership of data; and (4) garnering and sustaining state legislative support. The authors identify the variety of strategies that state education agencies employed to meet these challenges, highlighting those strategies that hold the most promise for the development of comprehensive LSDS. The authors conclude with recommendations for state education agency leaders interested in creating and expanding their states' LSDS. Appended are: (1) What do we know about the Evolution of Longitudinal Student Data Systems?; and (2) State LSDS Rankings. (Contains 3 tables and 2 footnotes. This work was supported in part by funds from the Education Policy Center at Michigan State University. )
Trends--Who Should Control Education? Working Paper #23
Author: Jacobsen, Rebecca
Date: 2011-08-29
Type: Opinion Papers
Subjects: Governance,Government Role,Public Support,Federal Government,Federal Legislation,State Government,Local Government,Surveys

Until recently, educational governance was left primarily in the hands of locally controlled school boards. In the 1980s, however, states began to reassert their influence in education policy making. More recently, the federal government has expanded its role in education through programs like No Child Left Behind. But as state and federal policy makers continue to increase their involvement in education policy, does the public support such shifts? By examining public opinion from the 1970s to 2010, we find that unlike some policy advocates who see local control of education as obsolete, the public often expresses strong support for and satisfaction with local control. At the same time, the people recognize that the state and federal government can play an important role in education. We find increased support for state and federal involvement when issues of equity are invoked by question wording. List of abbreviations is appended. (Contains 11 tables.The work for this paper was supported in part by the Education Policy Center, Michigan State University. )
Data Use by Teachers: Productive Improvement or Panacea? Working Paper #19
Author: Kennedy, Mary M.
Date: 2011-05-20
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: Teaching Methods,Feedback (Response),Educational Change,Psychometrics,Use Studies,Data,Evaluation Utilization,Information Utilization,Instructional Improvement,Teaching Models,Teaching Styles,Instructional Effectiveness,Teacher Response,Student Behavior,Behavioral Objectives,Performance Factors,Classroom Techniques,Educational Practices

The idea that teaching practices could be improved through better data systems has captured the imagination of policy makers, researchers and foundations. However, the concept of data use itself is so ill-defined as to suggest that it is more of a panacea than a coherent reform proposal. This paper examines the concept with an eye toward what we would need to know about teacher data use to ensure that it would actually yield productive improvements in teaching and would not turn out to be an ill-thought-through panacea. The paper offers a research agenda organized around two central issues: The difference between psychometric feedback and clinical feedback, and the difference between productive teaching and defensive teaching. (Contains 1 table.)
Benchmarking 2011: Trends in Education Philanthropy
Author: Grantmakers for Education
Date: 2011-00-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Benchmarking,Private Financial Support,Grants,Grantsmanship,Surveys,Financial Support,Budgets,Educational Finance,Philanthropic Foundations,Achievement Gap,Low Income Groups,Minority Groups,Innovation,Reading Skills,Academic Standards,Skill Development,STEM Education,Access to Education,Cooperation,Public Policy

The analysis in &quot;Benchmarking 2011&quot; is based on data from an unduplicated sample of 184 education grantmaking organizations--approximately two-thirds of Grantmakers for Education's (GFE's) network of grantmakers--who responded to an online survey consisting of fixed-choice and open-ended questions. Because a different subset of funders elects to respond to the &quot;Benchmarking&quot; survey each year, this report does not draw many direct year-to-year data comparisons, relying instead on grantmakers' responses to questions about how their efforts are changing over time. &quot;Benchmarking 2011&quot; respondents: (1) Represent varied foundation types; (2) Vary considerably in their geographic focus; (3) Tend to be smaller funders; (4) Are funding on shorter timeframes; (5) Are seeing their budgets stabilize or expand; and (6) Invest across all levels of the education system. (Contains 14 figures.) [Funding for this paper was provided by Target. For the 2010 edition of this report, see ED537488.]
Beach Books: 2011-2012. What Do Colleges and Universities Want Students to Read outside Class?
Author: Thorne, Ashley
Date: 2011-09-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: Cultural Influences,Relevance (Education),Cultural Pluralism,Reading Material Selection,Recreational Reading,College Students,Books,Reading Assignments,Classics (Literature)

What books do colleges and universities assign as common reading? What themes do the books contain? Are they old books or recent ones? What kinds of colleges and universities have common reading programs? What does a typical common reading program look like? What does all this tell us about the state of American higher education today? To find out, the author and her colleagues examined books assigned by 245 colleges and universities for the academic year 2011-2012. They found that they are, on the whole, recent, personal, race-focused, and unchallenging. Their main findings are: (1) Recent books trump the classics. Almost 90 percent of colleges chose books published since January 2000, and all but two selected books published since January 1972; (2) Only two books--one by Mark Twain and one by Aldous Huxley--are &quot;classics&quot; even in a broad sense; (3) &quot;The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks&quot; (2010) by Rebecca Skloot is by far the most popular book; and (4) Of the 100 colleges that selected books with a racial or ethnic theme, 60 chose books that focused on African Americans. Among the ways this year differs from last: more colleges assigned books with a Native American theme, fewer colleges assigned books about the Islamic World, and fewer colleges assigned classics. Colleges continue to ignore the best books when they make their selections for common reading. One likely reason for this is that Americans have eroded the distinction between high and low culture. Author Joseph Epstein writes in a recent &quot;Wall Street Journal&quot; book review that this distinction &quot;started to break down once the works of contemporary authors began to be taught in universities.&quot; Its breakdown progressed with the rise of multiculturalism and the study of popular culture. The author encourages colleges to continue and to improve their common reading programs. She offers 11 recommendations to colleges for choosing better books and making the most of the common reading experience. She also offer a list of books she recommends for common reading. Appended are: (1) Key and Totals; (2) By Author; (3) By Institution Name; (4) By Institution Type; (5) Nationally Ranked Institutions (Listed by U.S. News &amp; World Report); (6) Books Assigned at Multiple Institutions; and (7) Recommended Books for College Common Reading. (Contains 10 footnotes.)
More Districts Adopt Innovative Teacher Pay Plans. Teacher Compensation and Teacher Quality. Policy Brief
Author: Committee for Economic Development
Date: 2011-03-10
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Teacher Effectiveness,Teacher Salaries,Merit Pay,Teacher Evaluation,Faculty Mobility,Teacher Promotion

In 2009 the Committee for Economic Development (CED) called on district and state education officials to revamp the way that teachers are paid. New compensation systems are needed to attract highly qualified individuals into teaching under labor market conditions that have changed substantially since the typical framework for teacher salaries was adopted. This policy brief summarizes the &quot;Teacher Compensation and Teacher Quality&quot; 2009 report in which the CED argued that the so-called &quot;single-salary schedule,&quot; under which teachers are paid primarily or exclusively based on their years of service and academic degrees and credits earned, has outlived its usefulness. The 2009 report described several pioneering initiatives, such as Denver's Pro Comp program and the Teacher Advancement Program. This policy brief describes other initiatives in Baltimore, MD, Hillsborough County, FL, and Pittsburgh, PA. One of the findings in CED's 2009 report, reinforced by the experiences of the district innovations highlighted here, was that an essential &quot;enabling condition&quot; for new compensation plans is the creation of dramatically improved methods of evaluating teachers.
An Interaction-Based Approach to Enhancing Secondary School Instruction and Student Achievement
Author: Allen, Joseph
Date: 2011-08-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: Coaching (Performance),Academic Achievement,Secondary School Teachers,Secondary Schools,Teacher Effectiveness,Web Based Instruction,Instructional Effectiveness,Instructional Improvement,Intervention,Achievement Tests,Teacher Student Relationship,Achievement Gains,Hypothesis Testing

Improving teaching quality is widely recognized as critical to addressing deficiencies in secondary school education, yet the field has struggled to identify rigorously evaluated teacher-development approaches that can produce reliable gains in student achievement. A randomized controlled trial of My Teaching Partner-Secondary--a Web-mediated approach focused on improving teacher-student interactions in the classroom--examined the efficacy of the approach in improving teacher quality and student achievement with 78 secondary school teachers and 2237 students. The intervention produced substantial gains in measured student achievement in the year following its completion, equivalent to moving the average student from the 50th to the 59th percentile in achievement test scores. Gains appeared to be mediated by changes in teacher-student interaction qualities targeted by the intervention. [For a related What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report, see ED557783.]
Section 619 Profile, 18th Edition
Author: Lazara, Alex, Ed.
Date: 2011-10-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: Educational Legislation,Educational Quality,Disabilities,Equal Education,Federal Legislation,Preschool Children,Grants,Federal Aid,Educational Administration,Educational Finance,Agency Cooperation,Professional Personnel,Accreditation (Institutions),Progress Monitoring,Individualized Education Programs,Family Programs,Standards,Outcome Measures,Preschool Education,Special Needs Students,Educational Environment,Program Implementation,Tables (Data)

With the passage of P.L. 94-142, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, now the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), and subsequent amendments, states and jurisdictions have made great strides in the provision of services to young children, ages 3 through 5 years, with disabilities. As of Fall 2009, America's schools were serving 731,832 preschool children with a free appropriate public education. This 18th edition of the &quot;Section 619 Profile&quot; describes services provided under the Preschool Grants Program (Section 619 of Part B) of IDEA. The &quot;Profile&quot; presents current and/or historical information for all 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, which are eligible to receive IDEA Part B, Section 619 funds. Eight other jurisdictions, including American Samoa, the Bureau of Indian Education, the Federated States of Micronesia, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Palau, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and U.S. Virgin Islands are not eligible to receive Section 619 funds. Therefore, information on their current policies and services for children with disabilities is not included in the Profile. At times, however, historical information for these entities is included, as is preschool program contact information.
Reentry Programs for Out-of-School Youth with Disabilities. Part III: Characteristics of Reentry Programs
Author: Wilkins, Julia
Date: 2011-07-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: High School Students,Dropouts,Disabilities,Reentry Students,Intervention,At Risk Students,Academic Persistence,Barriers,Dropout Programs,School Districts,Community Colleges,Technical Education,High Schools,Nontraditional Students,Nontraditional Education,Adult Education,Online Courses,High School Equivalency Programs,Associate Degrees,Postsecondary Education,Graduation,Work Experience,College Credits,Program Development,Required Courses,Repetition,Scheduling,Curriculum,Academic Support Services,Teacher Role,Partnerships in Education

High school students with disabilities who drop out are costly to society. Compared to those who graduate, they are more likely to be unemployed, dependent on public services, and involved in the criminal justice system. Consequently, helping students with disabilities graduate has become a prominent national concern. Students with disabilities drop out at higher rates than their nondisabled peers and experience more obstacles to reentry. Education providers throughout the country have responded to this situation by offering reentry programs to which students with disabilities can return to complete their high school education. These programs are specifically designed to address students' barriers to school completion and prepare them for college and career readiness. Hence, the National Dropout Prevention Center for Students with Disabilities has created three reports to help better understand the issue and to assist in planning new reentry programs or redesigning existing programs. This report, &quot;Part III: Characteristics of Reentry Programs,&quot; is based on a thorough review of reentry programs operating around the country and provides an overview of the six most common characteristics of these programs, as well as specific examples of programs that illustrate these characteristics. Common barriers faced by programs and corresponding solutions are also presented. An appendix, Significant Features of Reentry Programs, is included. [For Part I, see ED575676. For Part II, see ED575675.]
Reentry Programs for Out-of-School Youth with Disabilities. Part II: Strategies for Locating and Reenrolling
Author: Wilkins, Julia
Date: 2011-07-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: High School Students,Dropouts,Disabilities,Reentry Students,Intervention,At Risk Students,Academic Persistence,Barriers,Dropout Programs,School Districts,Community Colleges,Technical Education,Nontraditional Students,Nontraditional Education,Online Courses,High School Equivalency Programs,Associate Degrees,Postsecondary Education,Graduation,College Credits,Out of School Youth,Poverty,Home Visits,Information Dissemination,School Community Relationship,Transitional Programs,Responsibility,Law Enforcement

High school students with disabilities who drop out are costly to society. Compared to those who graduate, they are more likely to be unemployed, dependent on public services, and involved in the criminal justice system. Consequently, helping students with disabilities graduate has become a prominent national concern. Students with disabilities drop out at higher rates than their nondisabled peers and experience more obstacles to reentry. Education providers throughout the country have responded to this situation by offering reentry programs to which students with disabilities can return to complete their high school education. These programs are specifically designed to address students' barriers to school completion and prepare them for college and career readiness. Hence, the National Dropout Prevention Center for Students with Disabilities has created three reports to help better understand the issue and to assist in planning new reentry programs or redesigning existing programs. This report, &quot;Part II: Strategies for Location and Reenrolling,&quot; provides information on methods that have been used to locate and reenroll youth and is intended for use by state departments of education, school districts, and community-based organizations interested in dropout recovery. Promising practices are highlighted in shaded boxes. Three appendices are included: (1) Summary of Strategies to Reach Out-of-School Youth; (2) Implementation Guide; and (3) Barriers to Reenrolling Students. [For Part I, see ED575676. For Part III, see ED575674.]