ethanporcaro/eric-fulltext-meta huggingface dataset:
Unpacking the Appeal of For-Profit Graduate Business Programs to US Underrepresented Populations. Market Intelligence
Author: Hazenbush, Matt
Date: 2018-00-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: Business Administration Education,Proprietary Schools,Graduate Study,Disproportionate Representation,Graduate Students,Educational Quality,Costs,Business Schools,Student Recruitment,Student Diversity

An area of graduate management education (GME) that has excelled at attracting underrepresented populations (URPs) is the for-profit sector, including programs at nationally-known brands like the University of Phoenix, Strayer University, and Capella University. URP students in total accounted for half of for-profit GME degrees conferred in 2015-2016, including 37 percent among African Americans alone. The purpose of this paper is to detail a study conducted by the Graduate Management Admission Council (GMAC), in partnership with marketing strategy firm globalsojourn, to learn more about the URP recruitment success of for-profit GME programs, URP candidates who consider and enroll in for-profit GME programs, aspects of for-profit GME URP candidates find most appealing, and what possible implications may be for nonprofit programs in their efforts to increase diversity in their applicant pools. Additionally, this paper highlights insights and examples from notable diversity initiatives at nonprofit GME programs and makes recommendations to inform nonprofits' strategies to grow diversity. [The following individuals at the Graduate Management Admission Council made significant contributions to the preparation of this report: Camille Coppock, Sabrina White, Tania Hernandez-Andersen, Betty Su, and Ethan Cebulash.]
A Capital Commitment: Year 1 Update (2018)
Author: District of Columbia Public Schools
Date: 2018-00-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: Public Schools,Urban Schools,College Readiness,Career Readiness,Reading Achievement,Graduation Rate,Caring,School Effectiveness,Enrollment,Elementary Secondary Education,Equal Education,Teamwork,Empowerment,Family School Relationship,Educational Quality

In its strategic plan, &quot;A Capital Commitment 2017-2022&quot;, DC Public Schools (DCPS) is committed to ensuring that all its schools provide rigorous and joyful learning experiences in a nurturing environment every day. As they strive to ensure every student feels loved, challenged, and prepared to positively influence society and thrive in life, they want to keep the community informed about its progress toward becoming a district of both excellence and equity. This brief report is the year one evaluation of the five-year strategic plan. [The strategic plan, &quot;A Capital Commitment 2017-2022,&quot; is attached to this report. To also view the strategic plan, see ED588879.]
&quot;Affirmative Action&quot; and Equal Protection in Higher Education. CRS Report R45481, Version 3. Updated
Author: Back, Christine J.
Date: 2019-01-31
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Affirmative Action,Equal Protection,Higher Education,Federal Courts,Court Litigation,Student Diversity,College Students,Racial Composition,Universities,School Policy,Civil Rights Legislation,Federal Legislation,Racial Segregation,School Desegregation,Federal Aid,State Aid,Grants,Educational Policy,College Admission,Admission Criteria

The last several years have seen renewed debate over the role that race plays in higher education--a debate over &quot;affirmative action.&quot; The report first considers &quot;affirmative action&quot; in its original sense: the &quot;mandatory&quot; race-conscious measures that the federal courts have imposed on &quot;de jure&quot; segregated public university systems. This report explains that the federal courts have come to subject voluntary &quot;affirmative action&quot; policies to a particularly searching form of review, known today as strict scrutiny. They have so far upheld those policies under a single theory: that the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body uniquely justify some consideration of race when deciding how to assemble an incoming class. To rely on that diversity rationale, however, the Court now requires universities to articulate in concrete and precise terms what their diversity-related goals are, and why they have chosen those goals in particular. This report concludes by discussing the role that Title VI plays in ensuring equal protection in higher education, both public and private, including several avenues for congressional action under the Act.
Teacher Retention, Mobility, and Attrition in Colorado, Missouri, Nebraska, and South Dakota. REL 2019-001
Author: Meyer, Stephen J.
Date: 2019-03-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: Teacher Persistence,Faculty Mobility,Public School Teachers,Rural Schools,Incidence,Tenure,Teacher Characteristics,Institutional Characteristics,School Districts,Teacher Placement,Differences,Elementary Secondary Education

Description: This study is designed to provide a better understanding of the dynamic and geographic character of the teacher labor market, including factors related to mobility and attrition, in rural and nonrural settings in four REL Central region states--Colorado, Missouri, Nebraska, and South Dakota. State and district administrators may use findings to identify needs for recruitment and retention, target workforce improvement strategies, inform progress toward state and district teacher-equity goals, and aid development of supports or incentives designed to improve teacher recruitment and retention where the need is greatest. Research Questions: (1) To what extent is the teacher workforce in four REL Central region states characterized by classroom teachers who are entrants (entering the state public school system), stayers (remaining in a classroom teaching position in the same school), movers (moving to a classroom teaching position in a different school or district), and leavers (taking a nonteaching position or exiting the state public school system) in rural and nonrural settings, and by state, county, and district?; (2) How does the prevalence of classroom teachers who are entrants, stayers, movers, and leavers vary according to characteristics of teachers, schools, and districts in rural and nonrural settings?; (3) How long do classroom teachers stay in the same classroom teaching position, and how does tenure in position vary in rural and nonrural settings and according to characteristics of teachers, schools, and districts?; and (4) To what extent are characteristics of teachers, schools, and districts related to classroom teacher mobility and attrition in rural and nonrural settings? Study Design: The study will use data from statewide longitudinal data systems in Colorado, Missouri, Nebraska, and South Dakota for the academic years 2011/12 to 2016/17. REL Central researchers will conduct descriptive analyses to examine teacher workforce dynamics in rural and nonrural settings within and across states. Researchers will also employ correlational analyses to examine the relationship between teacher mobility and attrition and various teacher, school, and district characteristics.
Allocation of Funds under Title I-A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. CRS Report R44461, Version 5. Updated
Author: Skinner, Rebecca R.
Date: 2018-09-17
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Educational Legislation,Elementary Secondary Education,Federal Legislation,Resource Allocation,Educational Finance,Federal Aid,Funding Formulas,Public Education,Grants,Disadvantaged Schools,Low Income Students,School Districts

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was comprehensively reauthorized by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA; P.L. 114-95) on December 10, 2015. The Title I-A program is the largest grant program authorized under the ESEA and is funded at $15.8 billion for FY2018. Title I-A of the ESEA authorizes aid to Local education agency's (LEAs) for the education of disadvantaged children. Title I-A grants provide supplementary educational and related services to low-achieving and other students attending pre-kindergarten through grade 12 schools with relatively high concentrations of students from low-income families. Title I-A has also become a vehicle to which a number of requirements affecting broad aspects of public K-12 education for all students have been attached as conditions for receiving Title I-A grants. Under Title I-A, funds are distributed to state educational agencies (SEAs) and (LEAs) based on four formulas. The ESSA made few changes to these formulas. One notable change is an increase in the set-aside for the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) and Outlying Areas from 1.0% to 1.1%. This change will take effect beginning in FY2017 provided the total amount available for state grants would not be less than the amount available in FY2016. All changes to the Title I-A grant allocation process made by the ESSA will take effect beginning in FY2017. This report provides a detailed discussion of the four Title I-A formulas used to determine grants as modified by the ESSA. Table A-1 in Appendix A offers an overview of the key elements included in the four formulas. Appendix B provides an overview of Title I-A appropriations levels in recent years. [Elizabeth Crowe, former Research Assistant at CRS, also contributed to this report.]
English Language Proficiency (ELP) Standards for English Learners with Significant Cognitive Disabilities
Author: Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO)
Date: 2019-01-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: English (Second Language),English Language Learners,Language Proficiency,Intellectual Disability,Academic Standards,Student Characteristics,Student Evaluation,Language Skills,College Readiness,Career Readiness,Misconceptions,Kindergarten,Elementary Secondary Education

The English Language Proficiency (ELP) Standards for English Learners with Significant Cognitive Disabilities presented in this document were developed with explicit consideration of the range of learners who make up the English learner with significant cognitive disabilities student population. The standards are further intended to support these students as they learn critical English language knowledge and skills and communicative competence that are necessary to access and meaningfully engage in and succeed in social and academic contexts in the same way as students with significant cognitive disabilities who are not English learners. The Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) supported this standards development effort to address states' request for help in meeting the Federal requirement for developing alternate ELP assessments.
Accountability Identification Is Only the Beginning: Monitoring and Evaluating Accountability Results and Implementation
Author: D'Brot, Juan
Date: 2018-07-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Accountability,Identification,Elementary Secondary Education,Educational Legislation,Federal Legislation,Program Design,Program Development,Program Implementation,Educational Improvement,Progress Monitoring,Program Evaluation,Validity,Educational Quality,School Effectiveness,Educational Assessment,Educational Indicators,Evidence Based Practice

The passage of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) marked the beginning of a new development cycle for accountability systems. State leaders once again have an opportunity to redesign their accountability systems based on the provisions included in ESSA and to ensure that systems improve outcomes for all students. The correct identification of schools is a necessary but insufficient condition to build capacity and deliver support to local systems. Systems of accountability, support, and continuous improvement contain a series of feedback loops and information hand-offs that offer opportunities to collect evidence that systems are working as intended. By identifying activities and their relevant evidence throughout the design, development, and implementation of accountability systems, we can begin to develop validity arguments for accountability and improvement systems. This paper references a framework that can support a systematic examination of the design, development, and implementation stages of accountability identification. This framework can be applied to the activities associated with each stage as follows: (1) Design Stage; (2) Development Stage; and (3) Implementation Stage. Within each of these stages and activities, state education agencies (SEAs) can widen or narrow what they monitor to expand or limit system claims. By developing a set of claims associated with accountability and improvement systems, SEAs can begin developing a logic model that identifies the assumptions, questions, data considerations, and possible evaluation approaches. The remainder of this paper describes a framework to systematically help states evaluate identification decisions. The framework is not intended to be prescriptive, but rather to provide examples of how states can apply this framework to begin establishing validity arguments for their accountability systems. [This is the third of a three-paper set of resources presented at CCSSO's &quot;State Plan Implementation for ESSA&quot; in April 2018. For &quot;Where the Rubber Meets the Road: Operations and Quality Control in School Accountability Systems,&quot; see ED586784. For &quot;Establishing Performance Standards for School Accountability Systems,&quot; see ED593538.]
CCSSO Framework on Supporting Educators to Prepare and Successfully Exit English Learners with Disabilities from EL Status
Author: Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO)
Date: 2019-01-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Disabilities,English Language Learners,Language Proficiency,Student Needs,Academic Standards,Alignment (Education),Special Education,Technical Assistance,Faculty Development,Speech Impairments,Language Impairments,Intellectual Disability,Multiple Disabilities,Blindness,Deafness,Civil Rights Legislation,Federal Legislation,Educational Legislation,Equal Education,Elementary Secondary Education

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), signed into law on December 10, 2015, requires that state education agencies (SEAs) establish standardized, statewide entrance and exit procedures for their English learners (ELs), including ELs with disabilities. For certain ELs with disabilities (i.e., ELs for whom it is determined on an individual basis that they are not able to be assessed in all four domains -- listening, speaking, reading, and writing -- of the English language proficiency (ELP) assessment, as well as ELs who are students with the most significant cognitive disabilities who may take an alternate ELP assessment) state exit procedures may include additional considerations that take into account the unique needs of this small group of ELs. This framework is meant for SEA leaders responsible for creating and monitoring standardized, statewide procedures for exiting EL status. We believe that this framework would be particularly helpful when considering ELs with disabilities for whom disentangling ELP and disabilities may be particularly challenging, and who are therefore at risk of either inappropriately remaining in or prematurely exiting EL status. We do not offer guidance on how to determine whether English development is impacted by disabilities; this should be up to the student's Individualized Education Program (IEP) team to decide.
Quality Assurance and Public Accountability. CHEA/CIQG Publication Series
Author: Kristoffersen, Dorte
Date: 2019-00-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Quality Assurance,Accountability,Foreign Countries,Accreditation (Institutions),Higher Education,Outcomes of Education,Educational Quality,Vocational Education,College Outcomes Assessment

The world of higher education has been changing rapidly over the last 30 years with the move to mass education due to the needs of the knowledge economy for an appropriately skilled labour force and driven by continuous advances in technology. The purpose of this publication is to provide an overview of how quality assurance (QA) bodies are accountable to the public for how they accredit or quality assure effective institutional performance in the form of outcomes for students, often referred to as student success or student outcomes. The project consists of two parts. Part I is a mapping of practices of QA bodies with respect to performance measures related to student outcomes. On the basis of the findings in Part I, Part II presents case studies of practices for public accountability used by selected QA bodies. The project publication concludes with some general remarks and ideas for future consideration. [The Council for Higher Education Accreditation International Quality Group (CHEA/ CIQG) thanks the four QA bodies -- the Accrediting Commission of Career Schools and Colleges (ACCSC), the Malaysia Qualifications Agency (MQA), the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) and the WASC Senior College and University Commission (WSCUC) -- whose practices are included in the report -- for their support and contributions to the author in preparing the case studies.]
Federal Pell Grant Program of the Higher Education Act: Primer. CRS Report R45418, Version 2. Updated
Author: Dortch, Cassandria
Date: 2018-11-28
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Grants,Federal Aid,Higher Education,Student Financial Aid,Undergraduate Students,Awards,Eligibility,Family Income,Parent Financial Contribution,Paying for College,Costs,Summer Programs,Financial Support,College Attendance,Educational Legislation,Federal Legislation

The Federal Pell Grant program, authorized by Title IV-A-1 of the Higher Education Act of 1965, (HEA; P.L. 89-329), as amended, is the single largest source of federal grant aid supporting undergraduate students. The program provided approximately $29 billion in aid to approximately 7.2 million undergraduate students in FY2017. Pell Grants are need-based aid that is intended to be the foundation for all federal need-based student aid awarded to undergraduates. In award year 2015-2016, Pell Grants represented 72% of all federal undergraduate grant aid; 53% of federal, state, and institutional undergraduate need-based grant aid; and 28% of total grant aid for undergraduates coming from federal, state, institutional, and private sources. The discretionary statutory authority for the Pell Grant program was authorized through FY2017. The discretionary authorization was extended through FY2018 under the General Education Provisions Act (GEPA), although the program has continued to receive appropriations. HEA also provides permanent mandatory program appropriations. This report provides descriptions of key elements of the Pell Grant program and information on recipient demographics, award levels, award value, program costs, and program funding. The first section of the report addresses how the program works and describes the basic process for awarding Pell Grants including the application process, student eligibility requirements, award rules and calculations, and the role of the institution of higher education (IHE) in the process. This section is followed by sections on recipient characteristics and the role the program plays in relation to other student aid. The report explains the complex Pell Grant funding streams and their implications. Finally, program costs and estimates are presented. In addition, the appendices provide historical Pell Grant award amounts (Appendix A), Pell Grant recipient counts (Appendix B), recent and future program funding (Appendix C), surplus and shortfall levels (Appendix D), and acronyms commonly used in the report (Appendix E).
Harry W. Colmery Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2017 (P.L. 115-48). CRS Report R45205, Version 3. Updated
Author: Dortch, Cassandria
Date: 2018-05-16
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Veterans Education,Federal Legislation,Veterans,Educational Legislation,Student Financial Aid,Federal Aid,Federal Programs

As of FY2018, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) administers benefits under six GI Bills: the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance program (Post-9/11 GI Bill), Survivors' and Dependents' Educational Assistance Program (DEA), Montgomery GI Bill--Selected Reserve (MGIB-SR), Montgomery GI Bill--Active Duty (MGIB-AD), Reserve Educational Assistance Program (REAP), and Post-Vietnam Era Veterans Educational Assistance Program (VEAP). The GI Bills provide financial assistance to eligible servicemembers and veterans and their families while pursuing education and civilian job or career training. During the 114th Congress and early in the 115th Congress, Members introduced several pieces of legislation intended to update and improve the GI Bills®. Three bills were enacted in the 114th Congress to enhance GI Bill benefits, protect GI Bill participants, and collect outcome data on participants, among other purposes. Despite the legislation enacted in the 114th Congress, several issues and stakeholder requests remained outstanding. The Harry W. Colmery Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2017 (Colmery Act; P.L. 115-48) was introduced on July 13, 2017, as a compilation of several bills, some of which had previously received committee and subcommittee hearings. This report describes the provisions of the Colmery Act, as amended. The first section describes amendments made by the law to the Post-9/11 GI Bill. The two subsequent sections describe amendments that affect multiple GI Bills and GI Bills other than the Post-9/11 GI Bill. The final sections describe amendments to other programs and a new program.
Federal Support for Graduate Medical Education: An Overview. CRS Report R44376, Version 9. Updated
Author: Heisler, Elayne J.
Date: 2018-12-27
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Graduate Medical Education,Federal Aid,Educational Finance,Federal Programs,Public Agencies,Financial Support,Supply and Demand,Physicians

Access to health care is, in part, determined by the availability of physicians, a function of the physician supply. Policymakers have demonstrated a long-standing interest in access to care, both in general and for specific populations. Moreover, federal support for medical residency training (a.k.a., graduate medical education [GME]) is the largest source of federal support for the health care workforce. Although the health workforce includes a number of professions, the size of the federal investment in GME--estimated at $16 billion in 2015--makes it a policy lever often considered to alter the health care workforce and impact health care access. This report describes federal programs that provide GME support. Although these programs may also support training for other health professions, this report focuses on training for physicians, who receive the bulk of GME support. The report examines GME support in Medicare, Medicaid, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Defense, and programs administered by the Health Resources and Services Administration, such as the Children's Hospital and Teaching Health Center GME payment programs. The report details the mechanisms that various federal programs use to support GME and provides data, when available, on funding and the number of trainees. As noted in the table below, the data available vary by program.