ethanporcaro/eric-fulltext-meta huggingface dataset:
Report to Congress on Head Start Monitoring, Fiscal Year 2011
Author: Administration for Children, Youth, and Families (DHHS), Office of Head Start
Date: 2011-00-00
Type: Legal/Legislative/Regulatory Materials
Subjects: Program Evaluation,Federal Programs,Disadvantaged Youth,Early Childhood Education,Compliance (Legal),Grants,Evaluation Methods,Classroom Environment

Head Start monitoring assesses grantee compliance with requirements governing Head Start programs, including those specified in the Head Start Act (original authorizing legislation in 1965 and its subsequent amendments, most recently in 2007), Head Start Program Performance Standards, and other applicable federal, state, and local regulations. Monitoring reviews take several forms. As mandated by Section 641A of the Head Start Act, each Head Start grantee receives a full on-site review immediately after completion of their first year (First-Year review) of providing Head Start services and full on-site reviews on a triennial basis thereafter (Triennial reviews). Each year, the Office of Head Start (OHS) examines the monitoring review system to determine if there are changes that will improve the process. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2011, enhancements were implemented to reflect changes in policy and procedure, to ensure compliance with the Head Start Act (amended December 2007) and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (enacted February 2009), as well as improve the overall monitoring process. Specific changes included: Enhancing the monitoring protocol and software to better capture information on grantee performance; the inclusion of reviews for grantees who received funding under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA); further integration of the Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS™) instrument into the monitoring process; and expanded implementation of unannounced reviews. Reviews are conducted by a team of reviewers who are knowledgeable about Head Start and led by a Review Team Leader (RTL). To assess grantee compliance, review teams use the OHS Monitoring Protocol, which employs a standardized approach to assess program services and quality. Areas assessed include education, health, mental health, disabilities, nutrition, family and community partnerships, program management, governance, fiscal controls, facilities, and other standards related to enrollment, recruitment and selection, and program design. This report presents a summary of the findings of FY 2011 monitoring reviews and outcomes of Quality Improvement Plans, fulfilling the reporting requirement, Section 641A(f), of the Head Start Act. It highlights the enhancements made to the FY 2011 monitoring review system, summarizes grantee review outcomes, and describes the types of findings most commonly identified in FY 2011.
Impact Evaluation of Partners Advancing Childhood Education (&quot;PACE&quot;)
Author: Spencer, Rachael
Date: 2018-12-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: Program Evaluation,Educational Innovation,Grants,Family Programs,Family Involvement,Early Childhood Education,Primary Education,Mathematics Achievement,Reading Achievement,Language Acquisition,Interpersonal Competence,Literacy,Outcomes of Education

&quot;Partners Advancing Childhood Education&quot; (&quot;PACE&quot;) is an Investing in Innovation (i3) development grant funded by the Office of Innovation and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education. &quot;PACE&quot; is a family engagement program that enhances family engagement skills among educators and leadership skills among parents to support the academic and social-emotional development of children in pre-K through third grade (ages three to eight). The impact evaluation used a quasi-experimental design (QED) to examine the effect of &quot;PACE&quot; participants' mathematics, language, literacy, and social emotional development. &quot;PACE&quot; enrolled three cohorts of students over 3 years (cohort 1: 2014; cohort 2: 2015; cohort 3: 2016) and followed each cohort over a full year (September through September). Outcomes for &quot;PACE&quot; students were compared to a sample of students with similar characteristics who participated in business-as-usual, traditional academic instruction in matched pre-K and elementary programs. Comparison students were recruited using similar methods and time frames as those used for &quot;PACE&quot; students. Using hierarchical linear modeling, we found no statistically significant difference in mathematics, language, literacy, or social emotional development gains among &quot;PACE&quot; students compared to those exposed to business-as-usual. [This report was prepared for the United Way of Greater Atlanta.]
Report to Congress on Head Start Monitoring, Fiscal Year 2012
Author: Administration for Children, Youth, and Families (DHHS), Office of Head Start
Date: 2012-00-00
Type: Legal/Legislative/Regulatory Materials
Subjects: Program Evaluation,Federal Programs,Disadvantaged Youth,Early Childhood Education,Compliance (Legal),Grants,Evaluation Methods,Classroom Environment

This report presents a summary of the findings of Fiscal Year (FY) 2012 monitoring reviews, fulfilling the reporting requirement, Section 641A(f), of the Head Start Act. It highlights the enhancements made to the FY 2012 monitoring review system, summarizes grantee review outcomes, and describes the types of findings most commonly identified in FY 2012. Head Start monitoring assesses grantee compliance with requirements governing Head Start programs, including those specified in the Head Start Act (original authorizing legislation in 1965 and its subsequent amendments, most recently in 2007), Head Start Program Performance Standards, and other applicable federal, state, and local regulations. The Head Start Program Performance Standards include education, health, mental health, disabilities, nutrition, family and community partnerships, management, governance, facilities, enrollment, recruitment and selection, and program design. Each year, the Office of Head Start (OHS) re-examines the monitoring review system to ensure ongoing system improvement of its review process. In FY 2012, OHS implemented enhancements to reflect changes in policy and procedure, ensure compliance with the Head Start Act (as amended in December 2007), and improve the overall monitoring process. Specific changes include: (1) enhancing the Monitoring Protocol and software to capture more information on grantee performance; (2) inclusion of sampling to ensure the generalizability of information collected through the review process; and (3) further integrating the Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS™) instrument into the monitoring process. FY 2012 reviews are conducted by teams of reviewers knowledgeable about Head Start, and each team is led by a Review Team Leader (RTL). Each review is guided by the standardized methodology and the Monitoring Protocol, which guides reviewers' on-site activities to assess program performance and compliance. [For the 2011 report, see ED591019.]
Report to Congress on Head Start Monitoring, Fiscal Year 2013
Author: Administration for Children, Youth, and Families (DHHS), Office of Head Start
Date: 2013-00-00
Type: Legal/Legislative/Regulatory Materials
Subjects: Program Evaluation,Federal Programs,Disadvantaged Youth,Early Childhood Education,Compliance (Legal),Grants,Evaluation Methods,Classroom Environment

This report presents a summary of the findings of Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 monitoring reviews, fulfilling the reporting requirement, Section 641A(f), of the Head Start Act. It highlights the enhancements made to the FY 2013 monitoring review system, summarizes grantee review outcomes, and describes the types of findings most commonly identified in FY 2013. Head Start monitoring assesses grantee compliance with requirements governing Head Start programs, including those specified in the Head Start Act (original authorizing legislation in 1965 and its subsequent amendments, most recently in 2007), Head Start Program Performance Standards, and other applicable federal, state, and local regulations. The Head Start Program Performance Standards include provisions surrounding education, health, mental health, disabilities, nutrition, family and community partnerships, management, governance, facilities, enrollment, recruitment and selection, and program design. Each year, the Office of Head Start (OHS) re-examines the monitoring review system to ensure ongoing system improvement of its review process. In FY 2013, OHS implemented enhancements to reflect changes in policy and procedure, ensure compliance with the Head Start Act (as amended in December 2007), and improve the overall monitoring process. Specific changes include: (1) emphasizing consistency and accountability among review teams; (2) increasing focus on School Readiness goal development and implementation among grantees; and (3) adding background questions to provide contextual data for Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS™) analyses. FY 2013 reviews are conducted by teams of reviewers knowledgeable about Head Start, and each team is led by a Review Team Leader. Each review is guided by the standardized methodology and the Monitoring Protocol, which guides reviewers' on-site activities to assess program performance and compliance. [For the 2012 report, see ED591021.]
Report to Congress on Head Start Monitoring, Fiscal Year 2014
Author: Administration for Children, Youth, and Families (DHHS), Office of Head Start
Date: 2014-00-00
Type: Legal/Legislative/Regulatory Materials
Subjects: Program Evaluation,Federal Programs,Disadvantaged Youth,Early Childhood Education,Compliance (Legal),Grants,Evaluation Methods,Classroom Environment

This report presents a summary of the findings of Fiscal Year (FY) 2014 monitoring reviews, fulfilling the reporting requirement, Section 641A(f), of the Head Start Act. It highlights the enhancements made to the FY 2014 monitoring review system, summarizes grantee review outcomes, and describes the types of findings most commonly identified in FY 2014. Head Start monitoring assesses grantee compliance with requirements governing Head Start programs, including those specified in the Head Start Act (original authorizing legislation in 1965 and its subsequent amendments, most recently in 2007), Head Start Program Performance Standards, and other applicable federal, state, and local regulations. The Head Start Program Performance Standards include provisions surrounding education, health, mental health, disabilities, nutrition, family and community partnerships, management, governance, facilities, enrollment, recruitment and selection, and program design. In FY 2014, the Office of Head Start (OHS) implemented enhancements to reflect changes in policy and procedure, ensure compliance with the Head Start Act (as amended in December 2007), and improve the overall monitoring process. Changes crossed all protocol areas and were focused on emphasizing consistency and accountability among review teams. Examples of these changes include: (1) refining established Standardized Methodology to ensure consistency, objectivity, and accuracy within the review process and to provide a set of high standards to which the reviewers are held accountable; (2) enhancing the Management Systems analysis process to support review team discussions around system-wide trends and inconsistencies, while summarizing management systems in each content area; and (3) streamlining interview guides to ensure efficient and effective evidence collection for all content areas. FY 2014 reviews are conducted by teams of reviewers knowledgeable about Head Start, and each team is led by a Review Team Leader (RTL). Each review is guided by the standardized methodology and the Monitoring Protocol, which guide reviewers' on-site activities in assessing program performance and compliance. [For the 2013 report, see ED591022.]
Report to Congress on Head Start Monitoring, Fiscal Year 2015
Author: Administration for Children, Youth, and Families (DHHS), Office of Head Start
Date: 2015-00-00
Type: Legal/Legislative/Regulatory Materials
Subjects: Program Evaluation,Federal Programs,Disadvantaged Youth,Early Childhood Education,Compliance (Legal),Grants,Evaluation Methods,Classroom Environment

This report presents a summary of the findings of fiscal year (FY) 2015 monitoring reviews, fulfilling the reporting requirements found in Sections 641A(f) and 650(c)(2) of the Head Start Act. It highlights the enhancements made to the FY 2015 monitoring review system, summarizes grantee review outcomes, and describes the types of findings most commonly identified in FY 2015. Head Start monitoring assesses grantee compliance with requirements governing Head Start programs. In FY 2015, the Office of Head Start (OHS) implemented a newly aligned monitoring system to address the OHS grant cycle shift from an indefinite to a five-year project period. The Aligned Monitoring System was designed to provide OHS with comprehensive performance data needed by year four of the five-year grant. OHS will evaluate the data to determine whether the grantee will need to recompete. Additionally, OHS increased its focus on measuring quality along with compliance and is prioritizing having more frequent interaction with grantees to provide information to support their continuous improvement in core performance areas. OHS has identified core performance areas as: (1) Environmental Health and Safety; (2) Management Systems and Program Governance; (3) Fiscal Integrity and Eligibility, Recruitment, Selection, Enrollment, and Attendance (ERSEA); (4) Comprehensive Services and School Readiness; and (5) Teacher-Child Interactions (as addressed through the CLASS® observation instrument). In FY 2015, all five-year grants were monitored using the Aligned Monitoring System. Fiscal year (FY) 2015 reviews are conducted by teams of reviewers knowledgeable about Head Start, and each team is led by a Review Field Lead (RFL). Each review is guided by the standardized methodology and the Monitoring Protocol, which guide reviewers' on-site activities in assessing program performance and compliance. [For the 2014 report, see ED591023.]
Collaboration for Safe and Healthy Schools: Study of Coordination between School Climate Transformation Grants and Project AWARE. Final Report
Author: Kendziora, Kimberly
Date: 2018-06-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: School Safety,Educational Environment,Grants,Mental Health,Health Services,Guidelines,Student Needs,Educational Change,School Districts,Resilience (Psychology),Wellness,Health Promotion,Program Descriptions,State Departments of Education,Staff Development,Referral,Educational Resources,Cooperation,Elementary Secondary Education

Schools can work toward achieving safe, positive environments by integrating a behavioral support framework for students with a systematic approach to identifying students in need of mental health services. This study of the U.S. Department of Education's School Climate Transformation Grant (SCTG) program examined how participating states and school districts worked to achieve this goal by coordinating services and supports with Project Advancing Wellness and Resilience in Education (Project AWARE), which is administered by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Findings were based on data gathered through two sources: (1) telephone interviews with grantees to explore the ways in which services were coordinated, the benefits experienced from program coordination, and challenges and lessons learned; and (2) grantee applications and reports to understand how coordination was originally conceptualized and the extent to which grantee goals were being met. Nine state education agencies and 27 school districts received awards from both programs, for a total of 36 sites that were included in the study. Grantee districts and states were assigned ratings on a scale of 1 to 5 for the degree to which their grant activities were shared; these ratings contextualized the descriptions provided in interviews and documents to help understand the intensity of coordination. Key findings include: (1) Grantee coordination involved joint training, coordinated planning, communication, and the development of shared organizational structures; (2) Better integration of efforts to improve school climate with mental health services (e.g., by training staff in student identification and referral practices) was the most commonly reported accomplishment of coordination for grantees (75 percent); (3) Regarding factors that inhibited coordination, districts most often described limited resources (including time, staff, or funds), whereas states more often reported lacking common goals or understanding and having different philosophies; (4) Planning activities that grantees stated they wished they had done differently included establishing a team as soon as feasible, leveraging existing teams, clarifying goals early on, and mapping resources to determine which services and strategies were already in place to avoid redundancies; and (5) Lessons learned about communication included the importance of messaging, helping stakeholders understand the need for and goals of the grant, and connecting these goals to the district's mission and other initiatives and strategies. [For the brief, see ED612708.]
Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs: Final Report
Author: Le Floch, Kerstin Carlson
Date: 2018-04-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: Federal Legislation,Elementary Secondary Education,Educational Legislation,Low Achievement,Poverty,Resource Allocation,Low Income Students,Federal Aid,Student Needs,School Personnel,Participative Decision Making,Institutional Characteristics,Student Characteristics,Principals,Expenditures,Paraprofessional School Personnel,Teachers,Needs,Institutional Autonomy,Intervention,School Districts

The original purpose of the Title I program of the &quot;Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965&quot; (ESEA) was to provide supplemental services to assist low-achieving students in high-poverty schools, and schools were required to target Title I funds specifically to serve such students. In 1978, the schoolwide program (SWP) option was introduced to provide high-poverty schools with the flexibility to use Title I funds for whole-school approaches to improving achievement for all students in schools with high concentrations of poverty, particularly low-achieving students. Unlike schools using the traditional targeted assistance program (TAP) approach, SWP schools are allowed to consolidate Title I funds with those from other federal, state, and local sources and are not required to ensure that the funds are spent only for specific students identified as low achieving. This study examined how SWPs use their flexibility to design schoolwide services and strategies to address the needs of students who are low achieving and compare these practices with those used by TAP schools. Specifically, the data collected for this study provide insight into the types of services that are supported by Title I funds in SWP and TAP schools, the decision-making processes that inform the use of funds, and the extent to which Title I funds are consolidated or coordinated with other funding sources to support improved student outcomes. [For the results in brief, see ED613345.]
Degrees of Progress: The State of Higher Education in Oklahoma. 2017 Annual Report
Author: Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education
Date: 2018-06-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Colleges,Universities,Paying for College,Undergraduate Students,Tuition,Fees,Enrollment Trends,Educational Trends,Remedial Programs,Outcomes of Education,School Holding Power,Graduation Rate,Academic Degrees,Educational Attainment,Endowment Funds,College Faculty,Teacher Recruitment,Partnerships in Education,Study Abroad,Family Programs,Federal Programs,Welfare Services,Student Financial Aid,Scholarships,College Preparation,Community Colleges,Economic Impact,Higher Education,Education Work Relationship,Student Employment,State Aid,Costs

Higher education is the state's road to jobs and prosperity. No entity in state government can help Oklahoma reach its goals of educational excellence and workforce development faster or more comprehensively than public higher education. More college graduates means an increase in our state's per capita income and a stronger state economy. This annual report looks at higher education in Oklahoma today and includes profiles of Oklahoma's 25 colleges and universities.
PASS: Report on the Review of the Oklahoma Priority Academic Student Skills Standards for English Language Arts and Mathematics
Author: Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education
Date: 2014-10-16
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: College Readiness,Career Readiness,Language Arts,Mathematics Skills,Academic Standards,State Standards,College Entrance Examinations,Standardized Tests,College Mathematics,College English,Curriculum,Instruction,Student Evaluation,High School Students,Reading Skills,Writing Skills

Pursuant to HB 3399, the Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education (OSRHE) conducted a review for college- and career-readiness of the English Language Arts (ELA) and Mathematics Priority Academic Student Skills (PASS) standards. Two committees -- consisting of faculty subject-matter experts from State System colleges and universities -- were formed to review the ELA and Mathematics standards. The reviewers compared the alignment of the PASS standards with the ACT Standards for College and Career Readiness to determine whether students would require remediation. The ACT Standards for College and Career Readiness are listed according to ACT score ranges. The score ranges selected for alignment are consistent with OSRHE policy and research. The ELA review committee determined that each of the ACT standards in the ACT score ranges of 20-23 and 24-27 was aligned with at least one comparable ELA PASS standard. Similarly, the Mathematics review committee determined that each of the ACT standards in the ACT score ranges of 20-23 and 24-27 was aligned with at least one comparable Mathematics PASS standard. The Mathematics committee unanimously concluded that the Mathematics PASS standards are college- and career-ready and that students who mastered the standards would be prepared for a first-year college mathematics course such as college algebra. The committee also listed five specific concerns and recommendations to further strengthen the Mathematics PASS standards. The ELA committee unanimously concluded that the ELA PASS standards are college- and career-ready and that students who mastered the standards would be prepared for a first-year college English composition course. The committee also listed three broad concerns with recommendations to further strengthen the ELA PASS standards. Adopting rigorous standards is one of four academic factors that impact the college-readiness preparation of students. The other academic factors are curriculum, instruction and assessments. These conclusions and the OSRHE review process were independently reviewed and supported by Southern Regional Education Board (SREB) consultants.