ethanporcaro/eric-fulltext-meta huggingface dataset:
Career Clusters: Forecasting Demand for High School through College Jobs, 2008-2018. State Data
Author: Carnevale, Anthony P.
Date: 2011-11-00
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: Employment Opportunities,Occupational Information,Job Skills,Occupational Clusters,Demand Occupations,Information Technology,Biomedicine,Human Services,Visual Aids,Education Work Relationship,Federal Legislation

This report presents data on job opportunities and skill requirements through 2018 arranged by the 16 career clusters in the Carl D. Perkins Act of 2006. The data are arranged state-by-state and the District of Columbia, from 2008 through 2018. Skill requirements are reflected in the length and extent of educational preparation and training required for the job. Nationally, the demand for high school jobs will decrease from 41 percent of all jobs in 2008 to 37 percent of all jobs in 2018. By the same token, the demand for postsecondary education will increase from 59 percent of all jobs to 63 percent of all jobs by 2018. This state report provides state by state: (1) Job totals and job percentages by career cluster and education level in the base year (2008), and the forecast year (2018); (2) Estimates of postsecondary vocational certificates by career cluster; and (3) Comparison of career clusters implemented in each state to total jobs by career cluster in each state. In so doing, the authors highlight high demand career clusters within states that are not tied to distinct career pathways. Interesting highlights include: (1) Information Technology (23%), Health Sciences (21%) and Human Services (20%) are the three fastest growing job clusters for the nation: (a) Nevada (41%), Virginia (38%), Utah (37%), Washington (32%) and Arkansas (31%) are the fastest growing states for Information Technology; (b) Nevada (46%), Utah (35%), Idaho (33%), Colorado (33%) and Texas (32%) are the fastest growing states for Health Sciences; and (c) Nevada (40%), Utah (33%), Texas (31%), Colorado (29%) and Vermont (28%) are the fastest growing states for Human Services; (2) The highest proportion of STEM jobs as a fraction of all state employment are found in the District of Columbia, Massachusetts, Michigan, Washington and Maryland; and (3) The highest proportion of health science jobs as a fraction of all state employment are found in the District of Columbia, Vermont, Idaho, South Dakota and New Jersey. Appended are: (1) List of Occupations and Career Clusters; and (2) List of Career Clusters and Job Totals Per Cluster. (Contains 5 footnotes.) [For &quot;Career Clusters: Forecasting Demand for High School through College Jobs, 2008-2018. Executive Summary,&quot; see ED526351.]
The Effect of Charter Schools on Student Achievement: A Meta-Analysis of the Literature
Author: Betts, Julian R.
Date: 2011-10-00
Type: Information Analyses
Subjects: Charter Schools,Middle Schools,Elementary Schools,Achievement Gains,Academic Achievement,Laws,Program Effectiveness,Effect Size,Teaching Methods,Attribution Theory,Scores,Reading Achievement,Mathematics Achievement,Meta Analysis,Urban Areas,Outcomes of Education,Tables (Data)

Charter schools are largely viewed as a major innovation in the public school landscape, as they receive more independence from state laws and regulations than do traditional public schools, and are therefore more able to experiment with alternative curricula, pedagogical methods, and different ways of hiring and training teachers. Unlike traditional public schools, charters may be shut down by their authorizers for poor performance. But how is charter school performance measured? What are the effects of charter schools on student achievement? Assessing literature that uses either experimental (lottery) or student-level growth-based methods, this analysis infers the causal impact of attending a charter school on student performance. Focusing on math and reading scores, the authors find compelling evidence that charters under-perform traditional public schools in some locations, grades, and subjects, and out-perform traditional public schools in other locations, grades, and subjects. However, important exceptions include elementary school reading and middle school math and reading, where evidence suggests no negative effects of charter schools and, in some cases, evidence of positive effects. Meta-analytic methods are used to obtain overall estimates on the effect of charter schools on reading and math achievement. The authors find an overall effect size for elementary school reading and math of 0.02 and 0.05, respectively, and for middle school math of 0.055. Effects are not statistically meaningful for middle school reading and for high school math and reading. Studies that focus on urban areas tend to find larger effects than do studies that examine wider areas. Studies of KIPP charter middle schools suggest positive effects of 0.096 and 0.223 for reading and math respectively. New York City and Boston charter schools also appeared to deliver achievement gains larger than charter schools in most other locations. A lack of rigorous studies in many parts of the nation limits the ability to extrapolate. Appended are: (1) Details on the Studies Used in Any of the Authors' Approaches; (2) Distribution of Effect Sizes for Middle School Reading, KIPP Studies Only, Treating Each Estimate Equally; and (3) Distribution of Effect Sizes for Middle School Math, KIPP Studies Only, Treating Each Estimate Equally. (Contains 13 tables, 26 figures and 11 footnotes.) [Additional funding for this paper was provided by the Achelis &amp; Bodman Foundations, the Doris &amp; Donald Fisher Fund, The Heinz Endowments, and the Rodel Charitable Foundation.]
Federal Efforts to Improve the Lowest-Performing Schools: District Views on School Improvement Grant Requirements
Author: Kober, Nancy
Date: 2011-11-00
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: Elementary Secondary Education,State Standards,Disadvantaged Youth,Academic Achievement,Program Effectiveness,Statistical Significance,Educational Improvement,School Districts,Educational Change,Educational Legislation,Grants,Low Achievement,Educational Finance,Surveys,Eligibility

As Congress considers legislation to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965, one topic of debate is the program of school improvement grants (SIGs) authorized by section 1003(g) of Title I. SIGs are intended to help to turn around low-performing schools and are part of the larger ESEA Title I program to improve education for disadvantaged children. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) provided $3 billion in extra funding for section 1003(g) SIGs, which brought the total funding for fiscal year 2009 to more than $3.5 billion. This report by the Center on Education Policy (CEP), an independent nonprofit organization, provides information about school districts' experiences in implementing ARRA SIGs that can inform the ESEA reauthorization. This report describes school districts' early experiences in using this infusion of ARRA SIG funding and implementing the new SIG requirements. The information comes from a survey of a nationally representative sample of school districts conducted in late winter and early spring of 2011. Some of the findings are based on responses from all districts in the survey sample, while others are based on responses from the subsets of districts that were eligible for or had received SIG funding. The survey covered a range of topics in addition to SIGs. Other topics in the survey are discussed in a June 2011 report on the fiscal condition of districts (CEP, 2011a) and a September 2011 report on district implementation of the common core state standards (CEP, 2011b). Findings include: (1) ARRA SIG funds were concentrated on a small number of districts, as intended; (2) Most ARRA SIG-funded districts received assistance from their state in implementing improvement models; (3) In the early months of 2011, half of the districts receiving ARRA SIG funds said it was too soon to tell about the results of implementing the transformation, turnaround, or restart models; (4) ARRA SIG-eligible and ineligible districts differed in their views about the effectiveness of key program requirements; (5) Half of the ARRA SIG-eligible districts believe that more than three years may be necessary to improve the lowest-achieving schools; and (6) Among all the nation's districts, there is no clear consensus about the effectiveness of current ARRA SIG requirements. Appended are: (1) Confidence Intervals and Statistical Significance; (2) Study Methods; and (3) Confidence Intervals for Survey Responses. (Contains 7 figures, 1 table and 10 exhibits.)
Trends in Student Aid, 2011. Trends in Higher Education Series
Author: Baum, Sandy
Date: 2011-00-00
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: Undergraduate Students,Higher Education,Full Time Equivalency,Tax Credits,Federal Government,Student Financial Aid,Paying for College,Grants,Trend Analysis,Financial Support,Student Loan Programs,Work Study Programs,State Aid,Federal Aid,Private Financial Support,Income,Institutional Characteristics,Debt (Financial)

&quot;Trends in Student Aid,&quot; an annual College Board publication since 1983, is a compendium of detailed, up-to-date information on the funding that is available to help students pay for college. This report sorts aid into grants, loans, tax benefits, and Federal Work-Study assistance. It documents funding from federal and state governments, colleges and universities, employers, and other private sources. It examines changes in funding levels over time, reports on the distribution of aid across students with different incomes and attending different types of institutions, and tracks the debt students incur as they pursue the educational opportunities that can increase their earnings, open doors to new experiences, and improve their ability to adapt to an ever-changing society. This report presents the trends in student aid for 2011. In 2010-11, undergraduate students received an average of $12,455 per full-time equivalent (FTE) student in financial aid, including $6,539 in grant aid, $4,907 in federal loans, and $1,009 in a combination of tax credits and deductions and Federal Work-Study (FWS). In 2010-11, 46% of all grant aid (and 51% of undergraduate grant aid) came from the federal government. Ten years earlier, only 29% of all grant aid (and 34% of undergraduate grant aid) was federal. The distribution of subsidies from federal education tax benefits changed considerably with the introduction of the American Opportunity Tax Credit in 2009. The percentage of savings from credits and deductions going to taxpayers with incomes below $25,000 increased from 5% in 2008 to 17% in 2009. The percentage of savings going to those with incomes above $100,000 increased from 18% in 2008 to 26% in 2009. Total education borrowing, including federal student and parent loans, as well as nonfederal loans, increased by about 2% from 2009-10 to 2010-11. Borrowing per FTE student declined by about 2% overall, after adjusting for inflation. Lists sources. (Contains 1 table and 30 figures.) [This paper was written with the assistance from Michael Hurwitz, Kathleen Little, Jennifer Ma, and Anne Sturtevant. For related reports, see &quot;Education Pays, 2010: The Benefits of Higher Education for Individuals and Society. Trends in Higher Education Series&quot; (ED526357) and &quot;Trends in College Pricing, 2011. Trends in Higher Education Series&quot; (ED526358).]
High Expectations, High Support: Essential Elements of Engagement. 2008 Findings
Author: Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE)
Date: 2008-00-00
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: Benchmarking,Learner Engagement,Academic Achievement,Expectation,Evaluation Criteria,Student Financial Aid,Federal Aid,State Programs,Paying for College,Community Colleges,College Faculty,Two Year College Students,Outcomes of Education,Instructional Effectiveness,Educational Quality,Educational Strategies,Educational Improvement,Academic Support Services,Student Personnel Services,Educational Policy,National Surveys,Educational Attainment,Student Characteristics,Academic Persistence,Teacher Characteristics,Dropout Prevention,Guidelines

This paper presents the findings of the 2008 Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE). This year, CCSSE zeroes in on high expectations and high support as it presents the results of its 2008 survey. Both are critical to student success: Students do best when expectations are high &quot;and&quot; they receive support that helps them achieve at high levels. Lower the standard, and quality suffers. Eliminate the support, and students flounder. Colleges that demonstrate both high expectations and high support give their students essential tools to succeed. Three of the five CCSSE benchmarks--student effort, academic challenge, and support for learners--can help colleges assess whether they are setting high expectations and providing high support. Therefore, this report of the 2008 findings focuses on these three benchmarks. [For &quot;High Expectations, High Support: Essential Elements of Engagement. 2008 Findings. Executive Summary,&quot; see ED526360.]
High Expectations, High Support: Essential Elements of Engagement. 2008 Findings. Executive Summary
Author: Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE)
Date: 2008-00-00
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: Benchmarking,Learner Engagement,Academic Achievement,Expectation,Student Financial Aid,Federal Aid,Paying for College,Community Colleges,College Faculty,Two Year College Students,Outcomes of Education,Instructional Effectiveness,Educational Quality,Educational Strategies,Academic Support Services,Student Personnel Services,Educational Policy,National Surveys,Educational Attainment,Student Characteristics,Teacher Characteristics,Dropout Prevention,Guidelines

This paper presents the findings of the 2008 Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE). This year, CCSSE zeroes in on high expectations and high support as it presents the results of its 2008 survey. Both are critical to student success: Students do best when expectations are high "and" they receive support that helps them achieve at high levels. Lower the standard, and quality suffers. Eliminate the support, and students flounder. But colleges that demonstrate both high expectations and high support give their students essential tools to succeed. Three of the five CCSSE benchmarks--student effort, academic challenge, and support for learners--can help colleges assess whether they are setting high expectations and providing high support. Therefore, this report of the 2008 findings focuses on these three benchmarks. [For the full report, "High Expectations, High Support: Essential Elements of Engagement. 2008 Findings," see ED526359.]
Benchmarking & Benchmarks: Effective Practice with Entering Students
Author: Center for Community College Student Engagement
Date: 2010-00-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Benchmarking,Learner Engagement,Community Colleges,Student Experience,Educational Practices,College Freshmen,Institutional Evaluation,Evaluation Methods,College Readiness,Web Sites,Data,Program Descriptions,Academic Achievement,Expectation,Evaluation Criteria,Two Year College Students,Outcomes of Education,Instructional Effectiveness,Educational Quality,Educational Strategies,Educational Improvement,Academic Support Services,Student Personnel Services,Educational Policy,National Surveys,Educational Attainment,Student Characteristics,Academic Persistence,Dropout Prevention,Guidelines,Developmental Studies Programs,Social Support Groups

If it takes a village to raise a child, it takes a strong network of committed colleagues to launch an initiative like "SENSE." From its conception in fall 2006 to the first national administration in fall 2009, the Survey of Entering Student Engagement ("SENSE") has been supported by key individuals and groups, without whom there would have been little chance that this idea--to create a national survey focusing on the front door of the community college--could have been achieved. To date, more than 91,000 students from 197 colleges in 37 states have participated in "SENSE," thereby helping to create a wealth of new and actionable data about the entering community college student experience. This report is designed to help community colleges take the next step forward. Using findings from the 2009 "SENSE" administration, it illustrates how colleges can use "SENSE" data to meet the goal of helping more entering students persist and succeed. The report introduces the "SENSE" Benchmarks of Effective Practice with Entering Students and demonstrates how colleges can use these benchmarks in their efforts to evaluate and improve their own performance.
The Heart of Student Success: Teaching, Learning, and College Completion. 2010 Findings
Author: Center for Community College Student Engagement
Date: 2010-00-00
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: Learner Engagement,Teacher Effectiveness,Community Colleges,College Faculty,Two Year College Students,Outcomes of Education,Instructional Effectiveness,Educational Quality,Educational Strategies,Educational Improvement,Academic Support Services,Student Personnel Services,Faculty Development,Educational Policy,National Surveys,Cohort Analysis,Graduation Rate,College Graduates,Educational Attainment,Student Characteristics,Academic Persistence,Teacher Characteristics,Dropout Prevention,Benchmarking,Guidelines

This year, the Center for Community College Student Engagement focuses its national report on college completion--and the teaching and learning that must be the foundation for high-quality certificates and degrees. Effective teaching and meaningful learning: They are the heart of student success. This report describes four key strategies to promote the strengthened classroom experiences that ultimately are requisite to both increased levels of college completion and deeper levels of learning. In this report, the term "classroom experiences" refers to any activity that takes place as part of a regularly scheduled course. The key strategies are: (1) Strengthen classroom engagement;  (2) Integrate student support into learning experiences; (3) Expand professional development focused on engaging students; and (4) Focus institutional policies on creating the conditions for learning. Using data from its three surveys--the Community College Survey of Student Engagement ("CCSSE"), the Survey of Entering Student Engagement ("SENSE"), and the Community College Faculty Survey of Student Engagement ("CCFSSE")--the Center explores the challenges associated with college completion and how these strategies address them. (Contains 16 endnotes.) [For "The Heart of Student Success: Teaching, Learning, and College Completion. 2010 Findings. Executive Summary," see ED526363.]
The Heart of Student Success: Teaching, Learning, and College Completion. 2010 Findings. Executive Summary
Author: Center for Community College Student Engagement
Date: 2010-00-00
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: Learner Engagement,Teacher Effectiveness,Community Colleges,College Faculty,Two Year College Students,Outcomes of Education,Instructional Effectiveness,Educational Quality,Educational Strategies,Educational Improvement,Academic Support Services,Student Personnel Services,Faculty Development,Educational Policy,National Surveys,Graduation Rate,College Graduates,Educational Attainment,Student Characteristics,Academic Persistence,Teacher Characteristics,Dropout Prevention,Guidelines

This paper describes four key strategies to promote the strengthened classroom experiences that ultimately are requisite to both increased levels of college completion and deeper levels of learning. In this report, the term "classroom experiences" refers to any activity that takes place as part of a regularly scheduled course. The key strategies are: (1) Strengthen classroom engagement; (2) Integrate student support into learning experiences; (3) Expand professional development focused on engaging students; and (4) Focus institutional policies on creating the conditions for learning. The Center for Community College Student Engagement uses data from its three surveys--the Community College Survey of Student Engagement ("CCSSE"), the Survey of Entering Student Engagement ("SENSE"), and the Community College Faculty Survey of Student Engagement ("CCFSSE")--to explore the challenges associated with college completion and how these strategies address them. "CCSSE" data reported here include only respondents who indicate that they do not currently hold a college degree. "SENSE" data reported here include only entering students who indicate that they do not currently hold a college degree. Entering students are those who indicate that this is their first time at their college. (Contains 7 endnotes.) [For the full report, "The Heart of Student Success: Teaching, Learning, and College Completion. 2010 Findings," see ED526362.]
Promoting Social, Emotional and Behavioral Outcomes of Young Children Served under IDEA. Issue Brief
Author: Fox, Lise
Date: 2007-01-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Young Children,Social Adjustment,Federal Programs,Federal Legislation,Behavior Problems,Educational Research,Teacher Effectiveness,State Programs,Educational Practices,At Risk Students,Special Needs Students,Educational Strategies,Models,Interpersonal Competence,Emotional Development,Social Development,Child Development,Program Effectiveness,Intervention,Guidelines,Child Behavior

A growing body of evidence confirms that serious and persistent challenging behaviors in early childhood directly relate to later problems in school success, social relationships, educational and vocational success, and social adjustment. Conversely, key social skills associated with learning in group settings include being able to get along with others, follow directions, identify and regulate one's emotions and behavior, think of appropriate solutions to conflict, persist on tasks, engage in social conversation and cooperative play, and correctly interpret other's behavior and emotions. This paper provides answers to the following questions: (1) What are the OSEP (Office of Special Education Programs), IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) Part C and B/619 requirements related to social, emotional and behavioral outcomes?; (2) What does the research say about the ability of ECEC personnel to improve children's social, emotional and behavioral outcomes?; (3) Is there an effective model for promoting social, emotional and behavioral outcomes?; and (4) How are effective practices that produce positive outcomes promoted from the state level? (Contains 1 figure and 20 endnotes.)
Integrating Early Childhood Mental Health Consultation with the Pyramid Model. Issue Brief
Author: Perry, Deborah F.
Date: 2009-11-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Evidence,Mental Health,Young Children,Early Childhood Education,Administrators,Coaching (Performance),Emotional Development,Social Development,Behavior Development,Behavior Problems,Models,Program Implementation,Expertise,Prevention,Emotional Problems,Social Problems,Consultants,Consultation Programs,Federal Legislation,Individualized Education Programs,Individualized Family Service Plans

A growing number of states and communities are implementing the Pyramid Model in early care and education settings, and in many of these places there are also early childhood mental health consultation (ECMHC) programs operating. This policy brief provides an overview of ECMHC, how it can support the implementation of the Pyramid Model and the policy issues that arise when administrators seek to integrate these two approaches at the state and local levels. Mental health consultants can: (1) serve as coaches for implementing the Pyramid practices; (2) serve as adjuncts to coaches, by working with children, families and teachers; and (3) use the Pyramid Model to inform and organize their own strategies for working with teachers and families. (Contains 1 figure.)