ethanporcaro/eric-fulltext-meta huggingface dataset:
How Is &quot;English Learner&quot; Defined in State Policy? 50-State Comparison: English Learner Policies
Author: Education Commission of the States
Date: 2020-05-00
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: English Language Learners,Definitions,State Policy,Educational Policy,State Legislation,Federal Legislation

The population of English learners (ELs) in K-12 schools continues to grow. Between the 2009-10 and 2014-15 school years, the percentage of English learners increased in over half of the states, and in 2017, English learners made up 10.1% of the total student population. Research suggests that in their transition to English, non-native speakers fall behind academically, which can intensify the longer a student remains in an English learner program. State education leaders are mindful of this and have implemented policies to identify, serve and reclassify English learners as they become proficient. This resource provides a national comparison of EL policies in all states. The information herein was gathered from state statute and regulation. In the cases where statute or regulation specified that definitions were determined by the department of education's EL guidebooks or used the federal definition, this is noted. The state-specific term for English learners is included along with the definition. The definition is taken directly from the source with minor edits for readability. [View the full &quot;50-State Comparison on English Learner Policies&quot; here https://www.ecs.org/50-state-comparison-english-learner-policies/.]
Percentage and Number of English Learners. 50-State Comparison: English Learner Policies
Author: Education Commission of the States
Date: 2020-05-00
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: Elementary Secondary Education,English Language Learners,English (Second Language),Second Language Learning,Second Language Instruction,Educational Policy,State Policy,State Regulation,Incidence

The population of English learners (ELs) in K-12 schools continues to grow. Between the 2009-10 and 2014-15 school years, the percentage of English learners increased in over half of the states, and in 2017, English learners made up 10.1% of the total student population. Research suggests that in their transition to English, non-native speakers fall behind academically, which can intensify the longer a student remains in an English learner program. State education leaders are mindful of this and have implemented policies to identify, serve and reclassify English learners as they become proficient. The percentage and number of English learners per state provided herein is from the National Center for Education Statistics. [View the full &quot;50-State Comparison on English Learner Policies&quot; here https://www.ecs.org/50-state-comparison-english-learner-policies/.]
State Resource Page for English Learners. 50-State Comparison: English Learner Policies
Author: Education Commission of the States
Date: 2020-05-00
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: Elementary Secondary Education,English Language Learners,English (Second Language),Second Language Learning,Second Language Instruction,Educational Policy,State Policy,State Regulation,Web Sites,Educational Resources,Resource Materials

The population of English learners (ELs) in K-12 schools continues to grow. Between the 2009-10 and 2014-15 school years, the percentage of English learners increased in over half of the states, and in 2017, English learners made up 10.1% of the total student population. Research suggests that in their transition to English, non-native speakers fall behind academically, which can intensify the longer a student remains in an English learner program. State education leaders are mindful of this and have implemented policies to identify, serve and reclassify English learners as they become proficient. Many states include English learner guidebooks and other resources on their state education websites. This resource lists webpages that are dedicated EL resource pages for each state education agency, where available. [View the full &quot;50-State Comparison on English Learner Policies&quot; here https://www.ecs.org/50-state-comparison-english-learner-policies/.]
Common Core State Standards: Frequently Asked Questions. CRS Report R43728, Version 3
Author: Skinner, Rebecca R.
Date: 2014-09-15
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Common Core State Standards,Educational Legislation,Elementary Secondary Education,Federal Legislation,Federal Aid,Federal Programs,Government Role,Accountability,Teacher Evaluation,Incentives,Alignment (Education),Reading Achievement,Mathematics Achievement

Over the last two decades, there has been interest in developing federal policies that focus on student outcomes in elementary and secondary education. Perhaps most prominently, the enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB; P.L. 107-110), which amended and reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), marked a dramatic expansion of the federal government's role in supporting standards-based instruction and test-based accountability, thereby increasing the federal government's involvement in decisions that directly affect teaching and learning. Under the ESEA, states are required to have standards in reading and mathematics for specified grade levels in order to receive funding under Title I-A of the ESEA. In response to this requirement, all 50 states and the District of Columbia have adopted and implemented standards that meet the requirements of the ESEA. Since the ESEA was last comprehensively reauthorized by NCLB, recent developments have taken place that have possibly played a role in the selection of reading and mathematics standards by states: (1) the development and release of the Common Core State Standards; (2) the Race to the Top (RTT) State Grant competition and RTT Assessment Grants competition; and (3) the ESEA flexibility package provided by the Department of Education (ED) to states with approved applications. These three changes have substantially changed the elementary and secondary education federal policy landscape. This short report answers common questions related to K-12 accountability provisions under the ESEA, Common Core State Standards, RTT, and the ESEA flexibility package. A more detailed discussion of the Common Core State Standards and their relationship to RTT grants and the ESEA flexibility package is available in CRS Report R43711, &quot;Common Core State Standards and Assessments: Background and Issues,&quot; by Rebecca R. Skinner and Jody Feder. [For &quot;Common Core State Standards and Assessments: Background and Issues,&quot; see ED607234.]
COVID-19: Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) Supplemental Appropriations in the CARES Act. CRS Report R46324, Version 2
Author: Lynch, Karen E.
Date: 2020-04-24
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: COVID-19,Pandemics,Child Care,Block Grants,Financial Support,Low Income Groups,Federal Aid,Child Caregivers,Compensation (Remuneration),Educational Finance,Federal Legislation,Funding Formulas,Costs

On March 27, 2020, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act was signed into law (P.L. 116-136). The CARES Act includes $3.5 billion in supplemental appropriations for the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG). This report provides an overview of the CCDBG provisions in the CARES Act. Among other things, these provisions address allowable uses and flexibilities of the supplemental funds. The report also includes allocations for the additional $3.5 billion in CCDBG appropriations. The CCDBG Act (42 U.S.C. §§9858 et seq.) is the main federal law supporting child care programs for low-income working families. The CCDBG is administered by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). HHS allocates CCDBG funds to states, territories, and tribes according to a statutory formula. In addition, certain funds may be reserved for other activities, such as technical assistance and research. State, territory, and tribal lead agencies submit CCDBG plans to HHS every three years describing how their child care programs will operate. CCDBG funds are used to subsidize the cost of child care for eligible children of low-income working parents. Funds are also used to support activities to improve the quality of child care and for certain other costs.
Federal Student Loans Made under the Federal Family Education Loan Program and the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program: Terms and Conditions for Borrowers. CRS Report R40122, Version 54. Updated
Author: Smole, David P.
Date: 2015-06-22
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Federal Programs,Student Loan Programs,Federal Aid,Educational Legislation,Higher Education,Federal Legislation,College Students,Paying for College,Expenditures,Eligibility,Fees,Loan Repayment,Loan Default

The William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan (DL) program, authorized under Title IV, Part D of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA), as amended, is the primary federal student loan program administered by the U.S. Department of Education (ED). The program makes available loans to undergraduate and graduate students and the parents of dependent undergraduate students to help them finance their postsecondary education expenses. For FY2016, ED estimates that 20.4 million loans (not including Consolidation Loans) totaling $109.2 billion will be made to students and their parents through the DL program. Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) program loans are no longer being made; however, outstanding FFEL program loans are due to continue being repaid over the coming years. FFEL and DL program loans are low-interest loans, with maximum interest rates for each type of loan established by statute. FFEL and DL program loans have terms and conditions that may be more favorable to borrowers than private and other nonfederal loans. This report discusses major provisions of federal student loans made available through the DL program and previously made through the FFEL program. It focuses on provisions related to borrower eligibility, loan terms and conditions, borrower repayment relief, and loan default and its consequences for borrowers. These topics are principally discussed with regard to loans currently being made through the DL program, or made in the recent past through either program. The report also provides detailed historical information on annual and aggregate borrowing limits, loan fees, and student loan interest rates.
Direct Federal Support of Individuals Pursuing Training and Education in Non-Degree Programs. CRS Report R46306, Version 2
Author: Dortch, Cassandria
Date: 2020-04-03
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Federal Programs,Federal Aid,Student Loan Programs,Financial Support,Postsecondary Education,Work Experience Programs,Nontraditional Education,Tax Credits,Corporate Education,Veterans Education,Veterans,Federal Legislation,Job Training,Eligibility,Family Programs,Welfare Services,Block Grants

In recent years, policymakers, industry stakeholders, and educational institutions have shown an interest in the federal government increasing financial support to individuals who pursue training and postsecondary education in non-degree instructional and work-based learning programs. This report provides an overview of existing federal programs and benefits that support individuals engaged in the pursuit of training and education in non-degree instructional and work-based learning programs. It informs consideration of additional or revised policy approaches aiming to support pursuit of training and education through non-degree programs. The report begins with a brief description of employer demand for individuals who have completed non-degree programs. This is followed by a discussion of the landscape and key characteristics of non-degree programs, from those offered through work-based learning to those offered through more formal instructional means. The report concludes with a detailed description of six federal programs and three tax benefits that currently provide direct financial support to students pursuing training and postsecondary education in non-degree instructional and work-based learning programs. Each program and benefit description highlights potential gaps and limitations in the scope and extent to which the program or benefit supports individuals pursuing non-degree programs, as well as student eligibility requirements and federal administration and oversight.
Type of Funding. 50-State Comparison: English Learner Policies
Author: Education Commission of the States
Date: 2020-05-00
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: Elementary Secondary Education,English Language Learners,English (Second Language),Second Language Learning,Second Language Instruction,Educational Policy,State Policy,State Regulation,Financial Support,Funding Formulas,Resource Allocation,Grants,Foundation Programs,Educational Finance

The population of English learners (ELs) in K-12 schools continues to grow. Between the 2009-10 and 2014-15 school years, the percentage of English learners increased in over half of the states, and in 2017, English learners made up 10.1% of the total student population. Research suggests that in their transition to English, non-native speakers fall behind academically, which can intensify the longer a student remains in an English learner program. State education leaders are mindful of this and have implemented policies to identify, serve and reclassify English learners as they become proficient. This resource identifies the EL program funding method (one of four) employed by each state: (1) Foundation Formula: Districts receive a base amount of funding per student with additional money or weights added to fund English learners. (33 states and the District of Columbia); (2) Resource Allocation Model: States distribute resources rather than assigning weights or dollar values for English learners. (6 states); (3) Grant: The state requires districts to apply for funding, and districts must make a case for why they should receive additional funding. Funding for English learners is distributed outside of the funding formula. (6 states); or (4) Reimbursement: Districts submit actual expenditures to the state, and the state reimburses districts for all or a portion of their spending. Funding for English learners is distributed outside of the funding formula. (1 state). Four states do not specify their funding models in their statute or regulation. [View the full &quot;50-State Comparison on English Learner Policies&quot; here https://www.ecs.org/50-state-comparison-english-learner-policies/.]
Head Start: Background and Funding. CRS Report RL30952, Version 42. Updated
Author: Lynch, Karen E.
Date: 2014-01-02
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Early Intervention,Federal Programs,Young Children,Low Income Groups,Early Childhood Education,Child Health,Family Programs,Nutrition,Social Services,Holistic Approach,School Readiness,Infants,Toddlers,Educational Finance,Financial Support,Eligibility,Enrollment,Governance,Professional Development,Federal Legislation,Federal Aid,Accountability,Grants,Child Care,Program Effectiveness,Grade 1,Grade 3,Children,Experience,Family (Sociological Unit),Preschool Education,Surveys,Student Transportation,Resource Allocation,Budgets

Head Start is a federal program that has provided comprehensive early childhood development services to low-income children and their families since 1965. The comprehensive nature of the program includes educational, health, nutritional, and social services. These services are intended to prepare children to enter kindergarten and to improve the conditions necessary for their success in later school and life. Most children served in Head Start programs are three- and four-year olds, but in 1994 legislation expanded Head Start to include an Early Head Start program, which serves children from birth to three years of age. The term Head Start in this report typically refers to both of these programs. This report provides background and funding information throughout the years since its enactment for the Head Start program.
Neither Accidental nor Intended: Pregnancy as an Adolescent Identity Project among Hispanic Teenage Mothers in Doña Ana County, New Mexico
Author: Cashdollar, S. E.
Date: 2018-00-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: Pregnancy,Hispanic Americans,Adolescents,Adolescent Attitudes,Mothers,Early Parenthood,Decision Making,Intention,Hispanic American Culture,Socioeconomic Background,Cultural Context,Sexuality,Contraception,Ethnicity,Social Class,Gender Issues,Self Concept,Community Characteristics,Empowerment,Labeling (of Persons),High School Students

Lidia and Josephina, although living vastly different lives, both represent Hispanic teen mothers. Pregnancies like theirs have been an issue of central concern in the U.S. for decades, with Hispanic teens considered most at risk. Despite vast recent declines in teen childbearing across all racial and ethnic groups, the U.S. continues to have the highest rate of adolescent childbearing among industrialized countries (United Nations, 2014), and Hispanics remain more likely than any other racial or ethnic group to give birth as teens and twice as likely to give birth as white teens (Romero et al., 2016). Hispanic teen mothers frequently hear stories, public opinions, and expert analyses concluding that their pregnancies resulted from irresponsible decision-making, limited access to contraception resources among the poor, cultural value systems that normalize women's subordination to men, or one of several other one-size-fits-all explanations that have informed countless policies and interventions aimed toward preventing early childbearing (Barcelos &amp; Gubrium, 2014; Luker, 1996). Yet for Lidia, Josephina, and many of the other young Hispanic women who participated in the current study, none of these accounts alone suffice to explain their pregnancies. In this study, I present stories from two groups of young Hispanic mothers in very different social contexts. Through thematic narrative analysis (Riessman, 2008), I examine how their reproductive choices shaped and were shaped by their processes of identification within the constraints of these contexts. In doing so, I aim to contribute to a growing body of literature that critiques stigmatizing, simplistic views of teen childbearing and instead privileges the voices of teen mothers themselves in order to highlight the complexity of their subjective experiences in reproductive decision-making. I begin with an overview of this literature. [This paper was published in &quot;Journal of Adolescent Research&quot; v33 n5 p598-622 2018.]
What EL Training or Ongoing Professional Development Is Required of General Classroom Teachers? 50-State Comparison: English Learner Policies
Author: Education Commission of the States
Date: 2020-05-00
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: Elementary Secondary Education,English Language Learners,English (Second Language),Second Language Learning,Second Language Instruction,Educational Policy,State Policy,State Regulation,Language Teachers,Teacher Qualifications,Teacher Certification,Faculty Development,Preservice Teacher Education,Elementary School Teachers,Secondary School Teachers

Research indicates that it is beneficial for English learners (ELs) if all general classroom teachers have some form of EL-specific training, regardless of whether they work directly with English learners or not. General classroom teachers help students gain proficiency in the essential areas of language proficiency: speaking, listening, reading and writing. Federal guidance encourages states to provide necessary personnel to effectively provide EL programs, including highly qualified core-content teachers who have received training to support English learners in their classroom. At least 28 states provide for specific qualifications or pre-service and in-service training and professional development for general classroom teachers in statute or regulation. This resource identifies what EL training or ongoing professional development is required of general classroom teachers in each state as identified in state statute or regulation. [View the full &quot;50-State Comparison on English Learner Policies&quot; here https://www.ecs.org/50-state-comparison-english-learner-policies/.]
What Is the Process for EL Reclassification? 50-State Comparison: English Learner Policies
Author: Education Commission of the States
Date: 2020-05-00
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: Elementary Secondary Education,English Language Learners,English (Second Language),Second Language Learning,Second Language Instruction,Educational Policy,State Policy,State Regulation,Classification,Language Proficiency,Language Tests,Academic Achievement,Student Evaluation

The population of English learners (ELs) in K-12 schools continues to grow. Between the 2009-10 and 2014-15 school years, the percentage of English learners increased in over half of the states, and in 2017, English learners made up 10.1% of the total student population. Research suggests that in their transition to English, non-native speakers fall behind academically, which can intensify the longer a student remains in an English learner program. State education leaders are mindful of this and have implemented policies to identify, serve and reclassify English learners as they become proficient. This resource captures each state's process for the reclassification of English learners as English proficient. States provide for English language proficiency assessment administration, a review of student academic achievement and assessment results, and teacher observations and recommendations, among other methods for reclassification. [View the full &quot;50-State Comparison on English Learner Policies&quot; here https://www.ecs.org/50-state-comparison-english-learner-policies/.]
Classroom Strategies Designed to Reduce Child Problem Behavior and Increase Peer Inclusiveness: Does Teacher Use Predict Students&apos; Sociometric Ratings?
Author: Mikami, Amori Yee
Date: 2020-00-00
Type: Journal Articles
Subjects: Classroom Techniques,Child Behavior,Behavior Problems,Peer Acceptance,Inclusion,Elementary School Teachers,Elementary School Students,Students with Disabilities,Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder,Symptoms (Individual Disorders),Sociometric Techniques,Children

Establishing a positive peer climate in the elementary school classroom is an important goal for educators. This pilot study examined if children's liking and disliking of their classroom peers is predicted by teachers' use of practices designed to address child disruptive behaviors that are off-putting to peers, and practices designed to enhance peer inclusivity. Whereas teacher practices to foster good peer relationships are useful for all students, they are particularly important for those with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) symptoms, as these children are often poorly regarded by classmates. Thus, we explored the moderating effect of child ADHD symptom status. Participants were 194 children (grades K-4) in the classrooms of 12 teachers. The teachers were helping our study team revise the Making Socially Accepting Inclusive Classrooms (MOSAIC) program for use in general education classrooms. The MOSAIC program contains a set of teacher strategies to encourage students' increased liking and decreased disliking of one another, which was measured by sociometric ratings. Teachers' use of MOSAIC strategies were observed and self-reported over a school year. Results indicated that teacher practices designed to improve children's classroom behaviors, as well as practices that encouraged peers to be more inclusive, each predicted children receiving better sociometric ratings at the end of the year after accounting for ratings at the beginning of the year. Some practices appeared uniquely efficacious for children with elevated ADHD symptoms, whereas others were useful for all children but had accentuated benefits for typical children. Implications for practitioners are discussed. [This article was published in &quot;School Mental Health&quot; (EJ1253711).]