ethanporcaro/eric-fulltext-meta huggingface dataset:
How Need-Based Financial Aid Reduces College Attrition among Low-Income Public University Students: The Role of Time Use
Author: Goldrick-Rab, Sara
Date: 2011-00-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: Control Groups,State Universities,Academic Persistence,Grants,Student Financial Aid,College Students,Low Income,Time Management,Sleep,Social Life,Study Habits,Role,Paying for College

The authors examine whether a need-based financial grant distribution &quot;at random&quot; to 1,500 Wisconsin Pell Grant recipients attending 13 public universities had an impact on how they allocated their time devoted to (a) working, (b) studying, (c) sleeping, and (d) socializing.  To test whether time use mediates the relationship between aid and college persistence, the authors also conduct a quasi-experimental inquiry into the effect of time use on attrition. Preliminary results indicate that while assignment to receive the Fund for Wisconsin Scholars (FFWS) grant did not change the amount of work university students, it did reduce the number of hours worked and altered the time of day students work. Specifically, students randomly assigned to receive the grant who worked in the last week reported working 1.66 fewer hours (the control group worked 15.09 hours, p=0.07). Students were less likely to work the &quot;graveyard shift&quot; between 2 am and 8 am if randomly assigned to receive the grant: 7.3 percent of the treatment group did so, compared to 12.0 percent of the control group (p=0.076). Among those who worked, those assigned to treatment were also 10.8 percentage points less likely to work between 8 am and 12 pm, which are popular starting times for classes (the control group worked those hours at a rate of 53.3%, p=0.015).
International Rules for Pre-College Science Research: Guidelines for Science and Engineering Fairs, 2010-2011
Date: 2011-00-00
Type: Guides - General
Subjects: Standards,Guidelines,Federal Regulation,Secondary School Science,Engineering,Laboratory Safety,Research Methodology,Ethics,Science Fairs,Science Projects,Research,Participant Characteristics,Civil Rights,Experimental Groups,Student Research,Environmental Standards,Animals,Health,Student Rights

This paper presents the rules and guidelines of the Intel International Science and Engineering Fair 2011 to be held in Los Angeles, California in May 8-13, 2011. In addition to providing the rules of competition, these rules and guidelines for conducting research were developed to facilitate the following: (1) protect the rights and welfare of the student researcher and human subjects; (2) protect the health and well-being of vertebrate animal subjects; (3) follow federal regulations governing research; (4) offer guidance to affiliated fairs; (5) use safe laboratory practices; and (6) address environmental concerns. [This guide was created by the Society for Science & the Public.]
Get the Federal Government out of Education? That Wasn't the Founding Fathers' Vision
Author: Jennings, Jack
Date: 2011-04-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: United States History,Federal Government,Leadership Styles,Political Attitudes,Government School Relationship,Educational History,Government Role,Taxes,Role of Education,Land Grant Universities,Elementary Secondary Education,Higher Education,Educational Finance,Human Capital

During the 2010 election campaign, Senator Rand Paul from Kentucky demanded the   dismantling of the U.S. Department of Education. &quot;I am against any federal funding or   control of education,&quot; he said. &quot;Historically, education was funded and controlled   locally&quot; (Strauss, 2010). Another new Republican senator, Mike Lee from Utah, asserted that &quot;Congress has no business regulating our nation's public education system, and has created problems whenever it has attempted to do so&quot; (Lee, 2010). Blake Farenthold, a Texas Republican who in 2010 won a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, also picked up on this refrain: &quot;First, I believe the federal government needs to get out of the education business. It's not a power granted the government in the Constitution&quot; (Brownsville Area Tea Party Association, 2010). With the triumph of Tea Party candidates and other conservatives in the November 2010 election, many in the new Congress are pressing to get the federal government out of education. This paper explains how eliminating or curtailing federal involvement in education would be a wrong-headed, simplistic move for several reasons: (1) It ignores the nation's history; (2) It would erode the state and local funding base for public schools; (3) It would make it harder for people to go college; (4) It would endanger the national commitment to equity; and (5) It would slow momentum for raising achievement to internationally competitive levels. The remainder of the paper explores these points in more detail. (Contains 4 footnotes.)
How Public Education Benefits from the Federal Income Tax Deduction for State and Local Taxes and Other Special Tax Provisions. A Background Paper from the Center on Education Policy
Author: Riddle, Wayne C.
Date: 2011-04-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: Public Education,Elementary Secondary Education,Federal Government,Taxes,Grants,Tax Credits,Government School Relationship,Educational Finance,Economic Impact

This background paper is intended to serve as a companion to the Center on Education Policy report, "Get the Federal Government Out of Education? That Wasn't the Founding Fathers' Vision." That report discusses the historical foundations and current purposes of the federal role in education. This paper goes into more detail about an issue mentioned briefly in the other report--the financial benefits that education incurs from special federal tax provisions for "individual" taxpayers, particularly the deduction for state and local taxes. Although federal "corporate" tax provisions also affect education, they are beyond the scope of this paper. This paper presents a summary of key findings. Following the key findings is a broad overview of all the special tax provisions for individuals that benefit any level of education and the estimated amount of benefits from each provision. The subsequent sections, which comprise the bulk of the paper, analyze the impact of state and local tax deductibility on public K-12 education. Key findings include: (1) Special tax provisions indirectly subsidize all levels of education; (2) Public K-12 education receives benefits worth billions of dollars through the deductibility of state and local taxes; (3) The federal deduction for state and local taxes has a greater impact in some states than in others; and (4) The federal deduction for state and local taxes appears to maximize the ability of states and localities to raise revenues for public K-12 education. (Contains 3 tables and 3 footnotes.) [For the companion report, "Get the Federal Government out of Education? That Wasn't the Founding Fathers' Vision," see ED518386.]
Public Schools and the Original Federal Land Grant Program. A Background Paper from the Center on Education Policy
Author: Usher, Alexandra
Date: 2011-04-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: State Schools,Public Schools,Government Role,Federal Government,Grants,Public Education,Land Grant Universities,Educational History,Trust Responsibility (Government),Land Use,Politics of Education,Background,Educational Policy,Federal Aid

This background paper from the Center on Education Policy (CEP) examines the origins, history, and evolution of federal land grants for public schools, as well as their significance as an early example of the federal role in education. It is intended to serve as a more detailed companion to another CEP paper, "Get the Federal Government Out of Education? That Wasn't the Founding Fathers' Vision" (CEP, 2011), which mentions land grants as part of a broader look at the historical federal role in education. Several key points can be drawn from this paper: (1) Federal support for public schools is not a modern concept; (2) The nation's founders saw these land grants as a way to encourage public education and incorporate the principles of democracy throughout the vast western territory; (3) The policy of land grants for education continued to be endorsed in federal laws spanning from the Jefferson Administration through the Eisenhower Administration; (4) Land grants were an early example of the federal government using a carrot-and-stick approach with states; and (5) Federal land grants continue to generate revenues for education. A table showing basic information about which states received federal land grants, which lands were granted to  these states for use of the public schools, and which federal act granted these lands is appended. (Contains 2 tables and 5 footnotes.) [For the companion report, "Get the Federal Government out of Education? That Wasn't the Founding Fathers' Vision," see ED518386.]
From School Choice to Educational Choice. Education Outlook. No. 3
Author: Hess, Frederick M.
Date: 2011-04-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: School Restructuring,School Choice,Educational Change,Data,Change Strategies,Virtual Classrooms,Influence of Technology,Funding Formulas,Finance Reform,Educational Resources,Textbook Content,Individualized Instruction

In recent decades, many calls for transformative change in American schooling have advocated school choice. Yet these calls themselves have too often accepted the orthodoxies of the nineteenth-century schoolhouse. In the new book &quot;Customized Schooling: Beyond Whole-School Reform&quot; (Harvard Education Press, 2011), the authors worked with the Walton Family Foundation's Bruno V. Manno to offer a more promising vision for twenty-first-century, choice-centered reform. This &quot;Outlook&quot; highlights six key aspects of systemic reform. These are: (1) The Critical Role of Data; (2) Not Just Choice, but Informed Choice; (3) Technology and the Rise of Virtual Schooling; (4) Customized Education for Teachers and Administrators; (5) Tools for Customization; and (6) Breaking the Whole-School Funding Assumption. (Contains 3 notes.)
Under-Represented Minorities in High School Physics: Results from the 2008-09 Nationwide Survey of High School Physics Teachers. Focus On
Author: White, Susan
Date: 2011-03-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: Disproportionate Representation,Minority Group Students,High School Students,Physics,African American Students,Hispanic American Students,Secondary School Science,Course Selection (Students),Advanced Placement Programs,Socioeconomic Status,Science Teachers,Secondary School Teachers,Teacher Surveys

In the fall of 2008, the authors contacted a representative sample of over 3,600 high schools in the U.S., both public and private, to determine whether or not physics was taught there. They received responses from over 99% of the schools. For the schools which indicated they were offering physics, they obtained contact information for the teachers. In the spring of 2009, they contacted each of the teachers who were thought to be teaching physics. The authors received responses from over 2,500 teachers (a 62% response rate). The authors' findings are based on their responses. Findings revealed that not only do fewer students take physics at the "worse off" schools, but the types of physics courses students take also differs by socioeconomic profile. As seen in Figure 4, about 10% of the students taking physics at "worse off" schools take AP (Advanced Placement) and second-year physics; almost 20% of the students at "better off" schools take these courses. From the authors' data, they do not know why these differences exist--they only know that they do exist. The data presented in this report suggests that the differences are driven, in part, by underlying socioeconomic factors. Other factors, such as the availability of additional seats in physics classes and the ability of teachers to attract students to physics, also impact physics taking. It is unlikely that the racial and ethnic differences in physics taking in high school will decrease unless the underlying factors are addressed. (Contains 1 table and 4 figures.)
Gang Prevention: An Overview of Research and Programs. Juvenile Justice Bulletin
Author: Howell, James C.
Date: 2010-12-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: Juvenile Gangs,Intervention,Prevention,Community Involvement,Peer Relationship,At Risk Persons,Delinquency,Aggression,Violence,Neighborhoods,Family Involvement,Supervision,Teacher Education,Parent Education,Interpersonal Competence,Racial Differences,Minority Groups,Gender Differences,Adolescents,Ethnicity,Popular Culture,Intimacy,Friendship,Antisocial Behavior,Substance Abuse,Mental Disorders,Victims of Crime,Family Influence,Peer Influence,Educational Environment,Youth Programs

This bulletin presents research on why youth join gangs and how a community can build gang prevention and intervention services. The author summarizes recent literature on gang formation and identifies promising and effective programs for gang prevention. The following are some key findings: (1) Youth join gangs for protection, enjoyment, respect, money, or because a friend is in a gang; (2) Youth are at higher risk of joining a gang if they engage in delinquent behaviors, are aggressive or violent, experience multiple caretaker transitions, have many problems at school, associate with other gang-involved youth, or live in communities where they feel unsafe and where many youth are in trouble; and (3) To prevent youth from joining gangs, communities must strengthen families and schools, improve community supervision, train teachers and parents to manage disruptive youth, and teach students interpersonal skills. (Contains 1 table, 2 figures and 7 endnotes.)
Findings from the Evaluation of OJJDP's Gang Reduction Program. Juvenile Justice Bulletin
Author: Cahill, Meagan
Date: 2010-12-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: Strategic Planning,Crime,Delinquency Prevention,Prevention,Program Effectiveness,Juvenile Justice,Technical Assistance,Juvenile Gangs,Program Implementation,Federal Aid,Leadership

This bulletin draws on findings from an independent evaluation, conducted by the Urban Institute, of the Gang Reduction Program's (GRP) Impact in Los Angeles, California; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; North Miami Beach, Florida; and Richmond, Virginia, to examine how effectively these sites implemented the program. Following are some of the authors' key findings: (1) In contrast to many previous crime prevention and reduction efforts, all sites successfully implemented the GRP model. Three of the four sites also implemented plans to sustain elements of the program as federal funding expired; (2) Successful outcomes related to crime reduction were seen in most of the sites although results varied; (3) Strong leadership of a site coordinator, close oversight by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) during the strategic planning and implementation phases, and the availability of technical assistance contributed to implementation progress of the sites; and (4) GRP is not a one-size-fits-all approach to gang prevention and reduction. The model is flexible enough that sites can adapt it to local conditions yet remain true to the original design. (Contains 5 figures and 11 endnotes.)
Project Early Kindergarten Evaluation: Results through 2009-10 of a Saint Paul Public Schools Initiative
Author: Maxfield, Jennifer
Date: 2010-11-00
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: Achievement Gap,Public Schools,Preschool Children,Kindergarten,Child Care,Urban Schools,Program Evaluation,School Readiness,Outcomes of Education,Program Implementation,Student Characteristics,Educational Policy,Preschool Education,School Districts,Program Descriptions,Longitudinal Studies,Comparative Analysis,Elementary School Students,English (Second Language),Special Needs Students,Low Income Groups,Cohort Analysis,Control Groups,Experimental Groups

Project Early Kindergarten (PEK) aims to improve the school-readiness of Saint Paul children and help close the achievement gap through offering high-quality educational experiences for preschool children. This report comes at the conclusion of the sixth year of PEK. Following an initial planning year (2004-05), PEK has served children through the school component for five years (2005-06 to 2009-10) and through the community child care component for four years (2006-07 to 2009-10). As shown in Figure 1, at this point Wilder Research outcomes data are available for children attending the first three years of PEK at school sites and the first four years of PEK at child care sites. More child care than school-based cohorts are being studied due to smaller sized cohorts in child care. This report summarizes the program's implementation and outcomes results to date, with an emphasis on new results from the 2009-10 school year (highlighted in gray in Figure 1). The report begins with a brief overview of the results from previous years. The remainder of the report focuses on the outcomes for which new data are available. For these outcomes, the new data are presented, as well as previous years' data on the same outcomes in order to examine stability and change in outcomes over time. This is an interim report, and future years' data will be provided in subsequent reports. Appendices include: (1) Program goals and components; (2) District pre-kindergarten consolidation; (3) Characteristics of children; (4) Evaluation; (5) School-based PEK results; (6) Community-based PEK results; and (7) References. (Contains 67 figures.) [For &quot;Project Early Kindergarten Evaluation: Summary of Results through 2009-10 of a Saint Paul Public Schools Initiative,&quot; see ED518453.]
School Readiness Report Card
Author: Chase, Richard
Date: 2011-03-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: Report Cards,Human Services,School Readiness,Disadvantaged Youth,Young Children,Kindergarten,Grade 3,Costs,Educational Finance,State Departments of Education,State Legislation,Specialists,Feedback (Response),Benchmarking,Reading Skills,Early Childhood Education,Advisory Committees,State Programs

The Early Childhood Advisory Council (ECAC) in Minnesota makes recommendations to the Governor and Legislature, and is responsible for fulfilling the duties required by federal and state statutes. The Council was created in 2008 by the Governor's Executive Order 08-14. The ECAC consists of 18 members, including the State Director of the Head Start Collaboration, and one representative each from the Minnesota Departments of Education, Health and Human Services. The governor, the Minnesota House of Representatives and the Minnesota Senate each appoint members. At least two appointees are public members who are parents of a child under the age of six. The 2010 Minnesota Legislature directed Minnesota's Early Childhood Advisory Council to make recommendations on the creation and implementation of a statewide School Readiness Report Card. The purpose of the report card is to monitor the state's progress toward the goal of having all children ready for kindergarten by the year 2020. The report card is to include both child outcomes and indicators of systems and services. The legislation stated that &quot;costs incurred by the council in making these recommendations must be paid from private funds.&quot; Private funds from the School Readiness Funders Coalition covered the costs, and Wilder Research was retained as the contractor to work with the Minnesota Departments of Education and Human Services, and the ECAC on developing the report card. This report documents the process Wilder Research used on behalf of ECAC to develop the report card indicators, including reviewing literature, working with ECAC committees, gathering feedback and comments from national experts and the public, and obtaining approval from the ECAC. It describes the indicators recommended to constitute the School Readiness Report Card, and the data sources and data collection timelines for each. Finally, the report presents recommendations on benchmarking. Appendices include: (1) Legislation; (2) Other Indicators Considered; (3) 3rd Grade Reading Proficiency by Kindergarten Proficiency; and (4) 10 Essential Elements of Effective Early Care and Education Programs. (Contains 5 footnotes.) [This paper was prepared for the Early Childhood Advisory Council under a contract with the Minnesota Department of Education with funding from the School Readiness Funders Coalition.]
National Board for Education Sciences 2010 Annual Report, July 2009 through June 2010. NBES 2010-6004
Author: National Board for Education Sciences (ED)
Date: 2010-00-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Public Agencies,Federal Programs,Educational Research,Special Education,Peer Evaluation,School Statistics,Program Evaluation,Technical Assistance,School Choice,Beginning Teachers,Outreach Programs,Budgets

The Institute of Education Sciences (IES, or the Institute), created as part of the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002 (ESRA) (Pub. L. 107-279), is the primary research arm of the U.S. Department of Education (ED). ESRA established the National Board for Education Sciences (NBES, or the Board) to advise and consult with the Director of the Institute. The Board is responsible for considering and approving priorities proposed by the Director to guide the work of the Institute; reviewing and approving procedures for technical and scientific peer review of the activities of the Institute; and reviewing and regularly evaluating the work of the Institute to ensure that its research, development, evaluation, and statistical analyses are consistent with the standards set out in ESRA. The Board is also responsible for providing to the Director of IES, the Secretary of Education, and appropriate congressional committees a report that assesses the effectiveness of the Institute in carrying out its priorities and mission, especially as they relate to performing scientifically valid research, conducting unbiased evaluations, collecting and reporting accurate education statistics, and translating research into practice. This paper presents the annual report of the National Board for Education Sciences for 2010. Appendices include: (1) Members of the National Board for Education Sciences (as of July 1, 2010) and Ex Officio Members; (2) Approved National Board for Education Sciences Resolutions (since inception); and (3) NCEE-Sponsored Evaluations, Reports, and Events. (Contains 6 tables and 12 footnotes.) [For &quot;National Board for Education Sciences 2009 Annual Report, August 2008 through June 2009. NBES 2009-6020,&quot; see ED518422.]