ethanporcaro/eric-fulltext-meta huggingface dataset:
Making Summer Pay Off: Using Behavioral Science to Encourage Postsecondary Summer Enrollment
Author: Headlam, Camielle
Date: 2018-07-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: Summer Programs,Academic Persistence,College Students,Enrollment,Behavioral Sciences,Community Colleges,Two Year College Students,Information Dissemination,Student Financial Aid,Grants,Program Effectiveness,Low Income Groups,Tuition,College Credits,Barriers

Research has shown that students who enroll in summer courses are more likely to persist and graduate. How can postsecondary institutions encourage more students to enroll in summer courses? If more students do enroll, will they experience improved academic outcomes? MDRC's Encouraging Additional Summer Enrollment (EASE) project explores these questions by using insights from behavioral science to encourage more students to enroll in summer courses. In partnership with the Ohio Association of Community Colleges and four community colleges in Ohio, MDRC developed and rigorously evaluated two interventions to encourage summer enrollment: (1) The first intervention was an &quot;informational campaign&quot; of personalized student communications delivered by email and mail that incorporated various behavioral science principles. This campaign aimed to simplify academic, financial aid, and procedural information related to summer enrollment, remind students of that information, and motivate them to register for courses; and (2) The second intervention was a similar &quot;informational campaign paired with a 'last-dollar' tuition-assistance grant&quot; that covered the difference between students' summer tuition and fees and any grant financial aid (such as Pell Grant funding) they had available for summer courses. To test the effectiveness of the two interventions, MDRC randomly assigned first-year, low-income students enrolled in spring 2017 courses to (1) a group that received an informational campaign, (2) a group that received tuition assistance plus an informational campaign, or (3) a control group that received the colleges' standard communications. The study finds that both interventions -- the informational campaign alone and the informational campaign plus tuition assistance -- increased summer enrollment. The informational campaign plus tuition assistance was substantially more effective. Both interventions also had positive, statistically significant effects on credit accumulation, an important indicator of progress toward a degree. These findings demonstrate that improved policies and communication about summer term can improve summer enrollment and, as a result, credit accumulation. The brief concludes with lessons and next steps for the project.
Reimagining the School Day: Innovative Schedules for Teaching and Learning
Author: Benner, Meg
Date: 2017-02-23
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: School Schedules,Educational Innovation,Educational Planning,Elementary Schools,Secondary Schools,Teacher Collaboration,Individualized Instruction,Block Scheduling,Small Group Instruction,Independent Study,Educational Objectives,Models

The squeeze for time to plan lessons and complete other administrative tasks shapes a school's professional environment and, ultimately, affects the quality of instruction. As teachers are largely separate from other educators during instruction, lack of time for collaboration can be very isolating. More than half of lower secondary school teachers in the United States report that they do not teach jointly or observe other teachers. Such practices can improve teaching quality by granting teachers opportunities to receive feedback on their lesson execution and infuse new best practices into their repertoire. In addition, providing teachers with more time to plan and attend to other responsibilities throughout the school day creates systematic opportunities to support new teachers and stretch more seasoned teachers--increasing the likelihood of teacher retention. During this structured planning time, new teachers should receive the coaching and personalized training they need to maximize their effectiveness and meet their professional goals. Meanwhile, experienced teachers can pursue leadership roles or coach new teachers. Fortunately, schools can look to several promising models to change their typical schedules. The Center for American Progress (CAP) compiled five of these innovative school schedules: (1) Guilmette Elementary School (Lawrence, Massachusetts); (2) Achievement First Greenfield middle school schedule (New Haven, Connecticut); (3) Generation Schools secondary school model (Brooklyn, New York); (4) Model elementary school schedule (created by Lexie Woo); and (5) Model high school schedule (created by Crischelle Navalta, Jillian Harkins, Mary Kreuz, Megan Williams, and Amanda Zullo). Some of these schedules have already been implemented in schools across the country to improve instruction and ensure that teachers have ample time to teach, prepare, and develop their craft. CAP has also included teachers' ideas for alternatives to the traditional school day model. While each example schedule varies, there were similarities in how school leaders and teachers at each school reimagined the use of time. These innovative schedules all included: (1) Additional time for planning and collaboration; (2) Flexible instructional blocks to differentiate content to student need; and (3) Opportunities for small group instruction or student-directed learning.
Workin&apos; 9 to 5: How School Schedules Make Life Harder for Working Parents
Author: Brown, Catherine
Date: 2016-10-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: School Schedules,Employed Parents,School Role,School Districts,Educational Change,Board of Education Policy,Public Schools,Costs,Child Care,Productivity,Low Income Groups,Elementary Schools,Educational Finance,Government Role,Financial Support,Federal Aid,Educational Legislation,Elementary Secondary Education,Federal Legislation,Secondary Schools

The world has evolved dramatically since the public school schedule first took root. When the school day first evolved, millions of children--many as young as 10 years old--worked, and most mothers stayed at home. Today, child labor for the most part is outlawed, and 75 percent of women with school-age children work. But in many ways, schools have not updated their policies to adapt to this changed world, and this means that large numbers of working parents must split their time between being a committed parent and being a committed working professional. This report, then, aims to answer three questions: (1) How misaligned are school and work schedules? (2) What can schools do to support parents as they try to meet their obligations to their employers and to their children? and (3) How can schools and districts pay for this effort? There's a short answer to this last query because 9-to-5 school reform is less expensive than most people believe--and does not require teachers to work more for less pay. To examine these questions, the Center for American Progress analyzed the calendars, schedules, and policies of the largest school districts in the country, which serve almost 6 million students CAP researchers also examined data from the National Center for Education Statistics. The resulting analysis reveals the multitude of ways that U.S. public schools make life unnecessarily harder for working parents.
Center for Collegiate Mental Health (CCMH) 2017 Annual Report. Publication No. STA 18-166
Author: Pennsylvania State University, Center for Collegiate Mental Health (CCMH)
Date: 2018-01-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: College Students,Mental Health,Individual Counseling,Counseling Effectiveness,Drug Therapy,Self Destructive Behavior,Suicide,Violence,Sexual Abuse,Trauma,Alcohol Abuse,Drug Abuse,Depression (Psychology),Anxiety,Eating Disorders,Substance Abuse,Family Problems,Psychological Patterns,Guidance Centers,Client Characteristics (Human Services),Hospitals,Drinking,Marijuana,Disabilities,Counselor Characteristics,Institutional Characteristics,Student Characteristics

The 2017 Annual Report summarizes data contributed to Center for Collegiate Mental Health (CCMH) during the 2016-2017 academic year, beginning July 1, 2016 and ending on June 30, 2017. De-identified data were contributed by 147 college and university counseling centers, describing 161,014 unique college students seeking mental health treatment, 3,592 clinicians, and 1,255,052 appointments. This report uses visualizations developed from years of CCMH data to explore college student mental health with an emphasis on individual counseling provided by counseling centers. The data and visualizations reviewed help to further articulate the complex practice of mental health treatment in higher education and offer a number of policy implications worthy of consideration. [Additional support for this research comes from the collaborative efforts of approximately 500 university and college counseling centers and the Penn State University Counseling &amp; Psychological Services. For the 2016 Annual Report, see ED572853.]
Measuring Success: An Overview of New School Classification Indicators under ESSA. Part of a Series on Implementation of the Every Student Succeeds Act
Author: Batel, Samantha
Date: 2017-08-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Educational Legislation,Federal Legislation,Program Implementation,Classification,Educational Indicators,Educational Quality,School Effectiveness,Academic Achievement,Accountability,Educational Improvement,Educational Planning,Educational Assessment

By the start of the 2017-18 school year, states must complete their plans to meet the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015 (ESSA), which requires all states to rethink their school classification systems in consultation with community members. So far, 16 states and Washington, D.C., have submitted their plans to the U.S. Department of Education, which must review and approve them before they are put into action. The remaining 34 states--plus Puerto Rico and the Bureau of Indian Education--must submit their plans by September 2017 to undergo this same process. As plans roll in, policymakers, advocates, and other stakeholders have their eye on certain policies, including how states expand their classification indicators to include measures other than test scores and graduation rates. This issue brief explores which new indicators of school quality or student success states use and how they include them in their school classification systems. States are also considering including them in their accountability systems outside of school classifications--for example, by publicly reporting and/or using data to inform the development of intervention and support plans. The brief concludes with recommendations for states as they finalize their plans.
Toward Better College Course Placement: A Guide to Launching a Multiple Measures Assessment System
Author: Cullinan, Dan
Date: 2018-07-00
Type: Guides - Non-Classroom
Subjects: Student Placement,Community Colleges,Two Year College Students,Alternative Assessment,Achievement Tests,Readiness,Administrative Organization,Evaluation Criteria,Evaluation Methods,Costs

Most students seeking to enroll in community college are required to take a placement test for math and English courses. Administrators are well aware of the shortcomings of using traditional placement tests alone, and state and college systems across the country are organizing multiple measures assessment (MMA) placement systems that will potentially provide more accurate results. MMA systems use alternative measures alongside the traditional tests to create a final placement. During fall 2016, MDRC, in partnership with the Community College Research Center (CCRC), launched the Multiple Measures Assessment Project and assisted ten Minnesota and Wisconsin colleges with the design and piloting of MMA placement systems. In the pilot in summer 2017, students who were identified as needing developmental education based on test scores could be &quot;bumped up&quot; to a college-level course based on measures such as high school performance (primarily GPA) or a noncognitive assessment. This guide is a result of that project. While recent evidence shows that implementing an MMA system is a promising strategy to mitigate the issue of underplacement, practitioners may be hesitant to change their current practices, skeptical about the measures used, or unsure where to start. The information in this guide addresses these concerns, explores examples and lessons learned from the first phase of the project, and provides recommendations for how to approach each step of the process. Beginning with the rationale behind changing assessment practices, the guidance outlines what an MMA system is, what it takes to get started, the personnel involved, and the costs that may be incurred in the design and planning processes. States and college administrators alike will find tools for understanding the scope of work involved in setting up a new system that addresses the placement needs of their students and that aims to provide students with a better chance to succeed.
The Committee on Accreditation&apos;s Annual Accreditation Report to the Commission on Teacher Credentialing, 2013-2014
Author: California Commission on Teacher Credentialing
Date: 2014-12-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Credentials,Teacher Certification,Teacher Qualifications,Accountability,Educational Quality,Standards,Educational Improvement,Accreditation (Institutions),Technical Assistance,Administrator Qualifications,College Admission,Field Experience Programs,School Personnel,Allied Health Personnel,Specialists,Intellectual Disciplines,Special Education,Teacher Education Programs

The Commission on Teacher Credentialing's current &quot;Accreditation Framework&quot; was adopted in 2006. The accreditation system is the primary means by which the Commission ensures quality in educator preparation in California. The system is designed as a 7-year cycle comprised of three major components or activities: (1) biennial reports; (2) program assessment; and (3) site visits. The Commission is assisted in the implementation of the accreditation system by the Committee on Accreditation (COA). While the Commission sets policy for accreditation, the COA implements the accreditation system and makes accreditation decisions for institutions offering educator preparation in California. This report presents information about the accreditation system, the COA decisions, and the three major components for the academic year 2013-14. The report is organized into three sections: (1) Accomplishment of the Committee's Work Plan in 2013-2014; (2) Summary of 2013-14 Accreditation Activities; and (3) Proposed Work Plan for the Committee on Accreditation in 2014-15. Each section addresses the purposes of the accreditation system: ensure accountability, ensure high quality programs, ensure adherence to standards, and foster ongoing improvement.
The Committee on Accreditation&apos;s Annual Accreditation Report to the Commission on Teacher Credentialing, 2014-2015
Author: California Commission on Teacher Credentialing
Date: 2015-12-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Credentials,Teacher Certification,Teacher Qualifications,Accountability,Educational Quality,Standards,Educational Improvement,Accreditation (Institutions),Technical Assistance,Administrator Qualifications,College Admission,Field Experience Programs,School Personnel,Allied Health Personnel,Specialists,Intellectual Disciplines,Special Education,Teacher Education Programs

The Commission on Teacher Credentialing's current &quot;Accreditation Framework&quot; was adopted in 2006. The accreditation system is the primary means by which the Commission ensures quality in educator preparation in California. The system is designed as a 7-year cycle comprised of three major components or activities: (1) biennial reports; (2) program assessment; and (3) site visits. The Commission is assisted in the implementation of the accreditation system by the Committee on Accreditation (COA). While the Commission sets policy for accreditation, the COA implements the accreditation system and makes accreditation decisions for institutions offering educator preparation in California. This report presents information about the accreditation system, the COA decisions, and the three major components for the academic year 2014-2015. The report is organized into three sections: (1) Accomplishment of the Committee's Work Plan in 2014-2015; (2) Summary of Accreditation Activities, 2014-15; and (3) Proposed Work Plan for the Committee in 2015-16. Each section addresses the purposes of the accreditation system: ensure accountability, ensure high quality programs, ensure adherence to standards, and foster ongoing improvement. [For the 2013-2014 report, see ED586227.]
The Committee on Accreditation&apos;s Annual Accreditation Report to the Commission on Teacher Credentialing, 2015-2016
Author: California Commission on Teacher Credentialing
Date: 2016-00-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Credentials,Teacher Certification,Teacher Qualifications,Accountability,Educational Quality,Standards,Educational Improvement,Accreditation (Institutions),Technical Assistance,Administrator Qualifications,College Admission,Field Experience Programs,School Personnel,Allied Health Personnel,Specialists,Intellectual Disciplines,Special Education,Teacher Education Programs

The Commission on Teacher Credentialing's current &quot;Accreditation Framework&quot; was adopted in 2006. The accreditation system is the primary means by which the Commission ensures quality in educator preparation in California. The system is designed as a 7 year cycle comprised of three major components or activities: (1) biennial reports; (2) program assessment; and (3) site visits. The Commission is assisted in the implementation of the accreditation system by the Committee on Accreditation (COA). While the Commission sets policy for accreditation, the COA implements the accreditation system and makes accreditation decisions for institutions offering educator preparation in California. This report presents information about the accreditation system, the COA decisions, and the three major components for the academic year 2015-2016. The report is organized into three sections: (1) Accomplishment of the Committee's Work Plan in 2015-2016; (2) Summary of Accreditation Activities, 2015-16; and (3) Proposed Work Plan for the Committee in 2016-17. Each section addresses the purposes of the accreditation system: ensure accountability, ensure high quality programs, ensure adherence to standards, and foster ongoing improvement. [For the 2014-2015 report, see ED586228.]
The Committee on Accreditation&apos;s Annual Accreditation Report to the Commission on Teacher Credentialing, 2016-2017
Author: California Commission on Teacher Credentialing
Date: 2017-12-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Credentials,Teacher Certification,Teacher Qualifications,Accountability,Educational Quality,Standards,Educational Improvement,Accreditation (Institutions),Technical Assistance,Administrator Qualifications,College Admission,Field Experience Programs,School Personnel,Allied Health Personnel,Specialists,Intellectual Disciplines,Special Education,Teacher Education Programs

The Commission on Teacher Credentialing's current &quot;Accreditation Framework&quot; was adopted in 2006. The accreditation system is the primary means by which the Commission ensures quality in educator preparation in California. The system is designed as a 7 year cycle comprised of three major components or activities: (1) biennial reports; (2) program assessment; and (3) site visits. The Commission is assisted in the implementation of the accreditation system by the Committee on Accreditation (COA). While the Commission sets policy for accreditation, the COA implements the accreditation system and makes accreditation decisions for institutions offering educator preparation in California. This report presents information about the accreditation system, the COA decisions, and the three major components for the academic year 2016-17. The report is organized into three sections: (1) Accomplishment of the Committee's Work Plan in 2016-17; (2) Summary of Accreditation Activities, 2016-17; and (3) Proposed Work Plan for the Committee in 2017-18. Each section addresses the purposes of the accreditation system: ensure accountability, ensure high quality programs, ensure adherence to standards, and foster ongoing improvement. [For the 2015-2016 report, see ED586229.]
Implementing Indiana&apos;s New Dual Language Immersion Programs: Educator Perspectives. Informing Policy &amp; Improving Practice Research Brief
Author: Chesnut, Colleen E.
Date: 2018-03-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: Immersion Programs,Bilingual Education,Models,English (Second Language),Native Speakers,Program Development,Sustainability,Teacher Attitudes,Administrator Attitudes,Documentation,Educational Policy,Program Effectiveness,Cultural Awareness,Teacher Recruitment,Teacher Role,Faculty Development,Teacher Characteristics,Educational Resources,Elementary Secondary Education

This brief provides guidance to policymakers and practitioners on the challenges and opportunities of the &quot;dual language immersion&quot; (DLI) model and presents research conducted with teachers and administrators both before and during their first years of implementing new DLI programs in several Indiana school districts. The brief also offers recommendations for growing and sustaining such programs by examining the perspectives of the stakeholders in the early stages of implementation. The following research questions guide this inquiry: (1) How do educators involved with new DLI programs perceive this instructional model and its potential benefits and/or challenges?; (2) As educators plan and implement new DLI programs, how do they perceive their own preparedness for this work?; and (3) What challenges and/or opportunities do educators perceive as they implement DLI programs? How do these differ among educators based on contextual factors (e.g., program model, experience, school/community demographics)? To allow for an in-depth examination of the perspectives of these educators, researchers used a qualitative case study design, collecting data through stakeholder interviews, focus groups, and publicly available documents. Based on analysis of data in response to the research questions, findings are highlighted in four areas: (1) benefits of immersion programs; (2) recruitment and staffing challenges; (3) importance and challenge of acquiring DLI curricular resources; and (4) program sustainability, expansion, and accountability.