ethanporcaro/eric-fulltext-meta huggingface dataset:
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Inspector General, FY 2017 Management Challenges
Author: Office of Inspector General (ED)
Date: 2016-10-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Federal Programs,Educational Finance,Information Security,Audits (Verification),Administration,Data Collection,Data Use,Reports,Grants,Student Financial Aid,Student Loan Programs,Federal Aid,Federal Legislation,Educational Legislation,Higher Education,Distance Education,Eligibility,Elementary Secondary Education,Contracts,Expenditures,Deception,Barriers,Information Technology,Accountability,Compliance (Legal),School Security

The Office of Inspector General (OIG) works to promote efficiency, effectiveness, and integrity in the programs and operations of the U.S. Department of Education (Department). Through OIG's audits, inspections, investigations, and other reviews, they continue to identify areas of concern within the Department's programs and operations and recommend actions the Department should take to address these weaknesses. The Reports Consolidation Act of 2000 requires the OIG to identify and report annually on the most serious management challenges the Department faces. Last year, OIG presented five management challenges: improper payments, information technology security, oversight and monitoring, data quality and reporting, and information technology system development and implementation. On September 22, 2016, the Office of the Deputy Secretary announced an initiative to review the identified management challenges, assigned senior managers to be accountable for each, and assembled a workgroup of other senior managers throughout the Department to address the noted challenges. OIG considers this initiative to be a positive step towards addressing long-standing management challenges and encourage the Department to continue to explore approaches that result in targeted focus within each of these areas. Although the Department made some progress in addressing these areas, each remains as a management challenge for fiscal year (FY) 2017. The FY 2017 management challenges are: (1) Improper Payments; (2) Information Technology Security; (3) Oversight and Monitoring; (4) Data Quality and Reporting; and (5) Information Technology System Development and Implementation. These challenges reflect continuing vulnerabilities and emerging issues faced by the Department as identified through recent OIG audit, inspection, and investigative work. [For the FY 2016 report, see ED621356.]
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Inspector General, FY 2018 Management Challenges
Author: Office of Inspector General (ED)
Date: 2017-11-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Federal Programs,Educational Finance,Information Security,Audits (Verification),Administration,Data Collection,Data Use,Reports,Grants,Student Financial Aid,Student Loan Programs,Federal Aid,Federal Legislation,Educational Legislation,Higher Education,Distance Education,Eligibility,Elementary Secondary Education,Contracts,Expenditures,Deception,Barriers,Information Technology,Accountability,Compliance (Legal)

The Office of Inspector General (OIG) works to promote efficiency, effectiveness, and integrity in the programs and operations of the U.S. Department of Education (Department). Through OIG's audits, inspections, investigations, and other reviews, they continue to identify areas of concern within the Department's programs and operations and recommend actions the Department should take to address these weaknesses. The Reports Consolidation Act of 2000 requires the OIG to identify and report annually on the most serious management challenges the Department faces. Last year, OIG presented five management challenges: improper payments, information technology security, oversight and monitoring, data quality and reporting, and information technology system development and implementation. Although the Department made some progress in addressing these areas, four of the five remain as a management challenge for fiscal year (FY) 2018. OIG removed information technology system development and implementation because their current body of work does not support its continued reporting as a challenge to the Department. The FY 2018 management challenges are: (1) Improper Payments; (2) Information Technology Security; (3) Oversight and Monitoring; and (4) Data Quality and Reporting. These challenges reflect continuing vulnerabilities and emerging issues faced by the Department as identified through recent OIG audit, inspection, and investigative work. [For the FY 2017 report, see ED621357.]
U.S. Department of Education FY 2019 Management Challenges
Author: Office of Inspector General (ED)
Date: 2018-10-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Federal Programs,Educational Finance,Information Security,Audits (Verification),Administration,Data Collection,Data Use,Reports,Grants,Student Financial Aid,Student Loan Programs,Federal Aid,Federal Legislation,Educational Legislation,Higher Education,Distance Education,Eligibility,Elementary Secondary Education,Contracts,Expenditures,Deception,Barriers,Information Technology,Accountability,Compliance (Legal),Homeless People

The Office of Inspector General (OIG) works to promote efficiency, effectiveness, and integrity in the programs and operations of the U.S. Department of Education (Department). Through OIG's audits, inspections, investigations, and other reviews, they continue to identify areas of concern within the Department's programs and operations and recommend actions the Department should take to address these weaknesses. The Reports Consolidation Act of 2000 requires the OIG to identify and report annually on the most serious management challenges the Department faces. Last year, OIG presented presented four management challenges: (1) improper payments; (2) information technology security; (3) oversight and monitoring; and (4) data quality and reporting. Although the Department made some progress in addressing these areas, each remains a management challenge for fiscal year (FY) 2019. These challenges reflect continuing vulnerabilities and emerging issues faced by the Department as identified through recent OIG audit, inspection, and investigative work. [For the FY 2018 report, see ED621358.]
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Inspector General, FY 2020 Management Challenges
Author: Office of Inspector General (ED)
Date: 2019-11-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Federal Programs,Educational Finance,Information Security,Audits (Verification),Administration,Data Collection,Data Use,Reports,Grants,Student Financial Aid,Student Loan Programs,Federal Aid,Federal Legislation,Educational Legislation,Higher Education,Distance Education,Eligibility,Elementary Secondary Education,Contracts,Expenditures,Deception,Barriers,Information Technology,Accountability,Compliance (Legal),Homeless People

In accordance with the Reports Consolidation Act of 2000, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) reports annually on the most serious management and performance challenges the Department faces. OIG's reports include a brief assessment of the Department's progress in addressing the challenges. They also identify further actions that, if properly implemented, could enhance the effectiveness of the Department's programs and operations. For FY 2020, OIG identified four management challenges the Department faces as it continues its efforts to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access. These challenges are: (1) improper payments; (2) information technology security; (3) oversight and monitoring; and (4) data quality and reporting. OIG specifically retained all four management challenges from their FY 2019 report; although the Department has made progress in addressing these challenges, OIG's work continues to identify vulnerabilities within each of these areas. [For the FY 2019 report, see ED621359.]
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Inspector General, FY 2021 Management Challenges
Author: Office of Inspector General (ED)
Date: 2020-11-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Federal Programs,Educational Finance,Information Security,Audits (Verification),Administration,Data Collection,Data Use,Reports,Grants,Student Financial Aid,Student Loan Programs,Federal Aid,Federal Legislation,Educational Legislation,Higher Education,Distance Education,Eligibility,Elementary Secondary Education,Contracts,Expenditures,Deception,Barriers,Information Technology,Accountability,Pandemics,COVID-19,Homeless People,Crime

In accordance with the Reports Consolidation Act of 2000, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) reports annually on the most serious management and performance challenges the Department faces. OIG's reports include a brief assessment of the Department's progress in addressing the challenges. They also identify further actions that, if properly implemented, could enhance the effectiveness of the Department's programs and operations. For fiscal year (FY) 2021, OIG identified five management challenges the Department faces as it continues its efforts to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access. These challenges are: (1) implementing the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act); (2) oversight and monitoring; (3) data quality and reporting; (4) improper payments; and (5) information technology security. OIG included implementation of the CARES Act as a new challenge for FY 2021 because of its breadth, complexity, and overall impact on the Department's programs, operations, and responsibilities. The remaining four challenges were included in OIG's FY 2020 report. While the Department made progress in addressing these challenges, OIG's work continued to identify vulnerabilities within each area. [For the FY 2020 report, see ED621360.]
Freedom of Expression at Davidson College: Is There a Problem? Answers from the Fall 2021 Survey of Davidson College Students
Author: American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA)
Date: 2021-12-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: Alumni,Donors,Academic Freedom,Higher Education,College Administration,Freedom of Speech,College Students,Student Attitudes,Student Surveys,Trustees,Censorship,College Environment,Educational Policy

The alumni group Davidsonians for Freedom of Thought and Discourse (DFTD) was founded in 2018 to monitor the state of free expression, diversity of viewpoints, and ideological balance at Davidson College. DFTD was also founded to undertake research to help clarify whether perceived problems in these key areas are real. Fall 2021 survey of major donors to Davidson College, virtually all of whom are alumni, revealed an urgent problem: Only 20% answered that it is &quot;extremely&quot; or &quot;very clear&quot; to them that the college administration protects free speech on campus, and 94% said that Davidson's next president should make campus freedom of speech and open, civil discourse a priority. But do Davidson's major donors have it right? Is there in reality a problem that needs to be addressed? To help answer this question, DFTD commissioned College Pulse--an online survey and analytics company dedicated to understanding the attitudes, preferences, and behaviors of today's college students--to conduct an independent, anonymous survey of Davidson students. The following summary of the Fall 2021 Davidson student survey findings presents the first available empirical data on the extent to which obstacles to freedom of expression are real and pervasive at Davidson. The findings also include insights from students on what they believe the priorities for Davidson's next president should be. The American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA) commends this report to the close attention of Davidson's Board of Trustees and of the Presidential Search Committee that is now working to identify Davidson's next president.
Student Outcomes and Earnings in Higher Education Policy
Author: Delisle, Jason D., Ed.
Date: 2022-01-00
Type: Collected Works - General
Subjects: Higher Education,Educational Policy,Outcomes of Education,Income,Educational Change,Data,College Choice,Adult Students,Accountability,Geographic Regions,Risk,College Graduates,Academic Advising,Educational Finance,Proprietary Schools,Private Colleges,Data Collection,Employment,Student Characteristics,Race,Low Income Students,First Generation College Students,Federal Legislation,Veterans,Educational Legislation,Vocational Education,Technical Education,Federal Aid,Paying for College,Student Costs,Debt (Financial)

A long overdue, much needed transformation is underway in the higher education system. It started a decade ago, when federal and state policy­makers first began to collect data on what students earn after pursuing a postsecondary education. But new data are fundamentally differ­ent. Unlike broad-based national statistics, such as how much someone with a bachelor's degree earns on average, this new information reveals what indi­vidual cohorts of students earn after they complete a particular program in a particular institution of higher education. Previously, policymakers and students may have only had a general idea about what a degree from a given institution was worth. Now, they can weigh the price -- and the debt they would incur -- for a particular college or program with knowledge of what their future earnings will likely be. The data can also reveal colleges and programs where graduate earnings are so out of line with the cost of attending that the mismatch almost constitutes fraud. This volume covers the early work to collect earnings data, the overlooked limitations to what these new data can accomplish, and case studies on how the data can be used. Reports in this volume include: (1) &quot;The Data Driving Higher Education Reform: The Historical Role of Employment and Earnings Information in Federal Policy&quot; (Nicole Ifill and Amy Laitinen); (2) &quot;Building the College Scorecard: A Tool to Assess Value and Aid Consumer Choice&quot; (Michael Itzkowitz); (3) &quot;Developing Student-Facing Tools Using Wage Data: The Texas Experience&quot; (Stephanie Huie); (4) &quot;Performance Measures and Postsecondary Investments for Adult Students: Available Yardsticks and the Challenges of Institutional Comparisons&quot; (Diego Briones and Sarah E. Turner); (5) &quot;The Limits and Potential of Program-Level Earnings in Higher Education Accountability: A Review of the Evidence and a New Look at Geographic Limitations&quot; (Kristin Blagg); (6) &quot;Accounting for Demographics, Selectivity, and Risk in Postcollege Earnings&quot; (Jorge Klor de Alva); (7) &quot;Using Earnings Data in College Advising: How New Information is Shaping Access Initiatives&quot; (Carrie Warick and Sara Melnick); (8) &quot;Innovations in Higher Education Finance: Using Income Data to Build Better Options for Students&quot; (Kevin James and Barry Cynamon); and (9) &quot;Show Me the Data: The Role of Capital Markets in For-Profit College Accountability&quot; (Trace Urdan and Paul Fain).
How State, District, and School Levers Can Improve the Course Access of Students Classified as English Learners in Secondary Schools
Author: Vazquez Cano, Manuel
Date: 2021-00-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: High School Students,English Language Learners,Access to Education,State Policy,Educational Policy,Educational Opportunities,College Preparation,Student Placement,Bilingual Education,Racial Composition,Faculty Development,School Counselors,Caseworker Approach

The purpose of this research brief was to synthesize key findings about levers to increase course access for students classified as English Learners in secondary settings. Specifically, we focus on malleable levers that are under the control of educators and policymakers. We reviewed eleven levers under three domains: (1) state and district policies, (2) school programmatic decisions, and (3) school staffing. For each lever, we assigned one of four ratings that best summarized the strength of the relationship between the lever and course access for students classified as English Learners. Overall, our brief finds limited research that directly connects individual levers to course access for students classified as English Learners. Among the eleven levers we examined, only two had a clear body of prior research that directly linked these levers to course access for students classified as English Learners. However, we found that three additional levers had evidence of impacting other educational outcomes for students classified as English Learners. Meanwhile, we found four levers with research linking the levers to Learners. Finally, we identified two levers that theory suggests could improve course access for students classified as English Learners, but where there was not empirical research on the topic, or current research has found mixed or limited support for the levers' impact. Importantly, we found that levers within each of the three domains we explored--state and district policies, school and programmatic decisions, and school staffing--were linked to improved course access (or related outcomes) for students classified as English Learners. Individual policymakers, administrators, and teachers all have the ability to remove barriers and open opportunities for students classified as English Learners.
Undergraduate Student-Translators&apos; Difficulties in Translating English Word + Preposition Collocations to Arabic
Author: Al-Jarf, Reima
Date: 2022-00-00
Type: Journal Articles
Subjects: Foreign Countries,Undergraduate Students,Translation,English (Second Language),Semitic Languages,Verbs,Form Classes (Languages),Nouns,Contrastive Linguistics,Interference (Language),Error Patterns,Semantics

English and Arabic have different types of collocations, i.e., groups of words that go together. This study aims to explore the difficulties that Saudi undergraduate student-translators have in translating English word + preposition collocations such as verb + preposition, noun + preposition, and adjective + preposition collocations to Arabic. A corpus of faulty word + preposition collocations was collected from students-translators' graduation projects to identify the types of translation errors, translation strategies, sources of translation errors and the contexts in which the translation errors occurred. A comparison of English and Arabic word + preposition collocations showed the following categories: (1) cases were the Arabic word + preposition collocations match those of their English equivalents in form and meaning (&quot;depend on&quot; [Arabic characters omitted], &quot;apologize for/to&quot; [Arabic characters omitted], &quot;interested in&quot; [Arabic characters omitted]); (2) cases where a preposition is used in the English collocation but no preposition is used in the Arabic equivalent (&quot;wait for&quot; [Arabic characters omitted]); (3) cases where an Arabic preposition is used after a word but no such preposition is used in their English equivalent (&quot;gave him tea&quot; [Arabic characters omitted], &quot;offered him a proposal&quot; [Arabic characters omitted], &quot;stopped participating&quot; [Arabic characters omitted], &quot;lack something&quot; [Arabic characters omitted]). Results showed that the students mistranslated certain prepositions in word + preposition collocations. In 84% of the errors, the students substituted a preposition in the translation by a faulty one, in 13%, they added a preposition after an Arabic word that does not require a preposition, and in 3% they deleted a preposition from a translation that requires use of a preposition. In addition, 19% of the errors were interlingual (transfer errors from English) and 81% were intralingual due to inadequate competence in L1 (Arabic). 44% were extraneous errors, 21% were due to ignorance of Arabic language rules of preposition use and 18% were due to faulty common use of the preposition in the students' local dialect. 86% were syntactic; 11% were semantic and 3% were stylistic errors. Results are reported in detail and implications for translation pedagogy are given.
Examining the Effects of a Brief, Group-Based Motivational Implementation Strategy on Mechanisms of Teacher Behavior Change
Author: Larson, Madeline
Date: 2021-00-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: Elementary School Teachers,Behavior Change,Teacher Behavior,Group Activities,Beliefs,Teacher Attitudes,Game Based Learning,Norms,Intention,Teacher Motivation

Training and consultation are core implementation strategies used to support the adoption and delivery of evidence-based prevention programs (EBPP), but are often insufficient alone to effect teacher behavior change. Group-based motivational interviewing (MI) and related behavior change techniques (BCTS; e.g., strategic education, social influence, implementation planning) offer promising adjuncts to training and consultation to improve EBPP implementation. Beliefs and Attitudes for Successful Implementation in Schools for Teachers (BASIS-T) is a theoretically-informed, group-based, motivational implementation strategy delivered prior to and immediately after EBPP training. The purpose of this study was to examine the proximal effects of BASIS-T on hypothesized mechanisms of behavior change (e.g., attitudes, subjective norms, intentions to implement) in the context of teachers receiving training and consultation for the Good Behavior Game. As part of a pilot trial, 83 elementary school teachers from 9 public elementary schools were randomly assigned to a BASIS-T (n = 44) or active comparison control (n = 39) condition, with both conditions receiving GBG training and consultation. Theorized mechanisms of behavior change were assessed at baseline and immediately post-training to examine the proximal effects of BASIS-T. A series of mixed effects models revealed meaningful effects favoring BASIS-T on a number of hypothesized mechanisms of behavior change leading to increased motivation to implement GBG. The implications, limitations, and directions for future research on the use of group-based MI and other BCTs to increase the yield of training and consultation are discussed. [This paper was published in &quot;Prevention Science&quot; v22 p722-736 2021.]