ethanporcaro/eric-fulltext-meta huggingface dataset:
Fact Sheet: LGBT Discrimination in Higher Education Financial Aid--Assistance Should Be Allocated on Need, Not Sexual Orientation
Author: Burns, Crosby
Date: 2012-00-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: Higher Education,Student Financial Aid,Sexual Orientation,Financial Needs,Federal Government,Resource Allocation,Federal Aid,Social Discrimination,Homosexuality,Social Bias,Student Needs,Barriers,Access to Education

Through the Free Application for Federal Student Aid, or FAFSA, the federal government provides more financial aid for higher education than any other institution. But because of discriminatory laws the FAFSA treats families headed by two mothers or two fathers differently than families headed by a mother and a father. This treatment distributes higher education financial aid in ways that sometimes hurt and sometimes help families headed by same-sex couples. Either way, this means that financial aid is often allocated based on sexual orientation when it should be based solely on financial need. Transgender applicants can encounter roadblocks with the FAFSA due to selective service issues, and possibly with data mismatch with their name and gender markers. Both of these issues can result in the delay or the rejection of their application. Gay and transgender youth with unsupportive and hostile families also encounter barriers throughout the application process that hinder their chances of receiving a college education. Lawmakers and the Department of Education should take the necessary steps to level the playing field and make the application process more fair and efficient for students, families, and American taxpayers.
Gateways to the Principalship: State Power to Improve the Quality of School Leaders
Author: Cheney, Gretchen Rhines
Date: 2011-10-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: Outcomes of Education,Program Validation,Principals,Educational Change,Instructional Leadership,Educational Objectives,Administrator Effectiveness,Administrator Education,Leadership Training,Academic Achievement,Administrative Principles,Administrator Characteristics,Educational Practices,Best Practices,State Standards,Educational Improvement,State Policy,Certification,School Effectiveness,Administrator Attitudes

Successful schools that provide positive, productive, and vibrant teaching and learning environments do not occur by accident. Instead, the most effective schools are led by principals who are equipped with the skills and possess the attitudes required to be exceptional school leaders. The good news is there is a growing research base that clearly defines the dispositions, skills, and knowledge needed for effective school leadership today. The disheartening news is that few educators are being measured against these criteria prior to becoming principals. States play a critical role in determining who leads the country's schools. Individual states control the two most important levers to ensure the quality of principals--principal preparation program approval and principal licensure oversight. Yet few states are exerting their authority and efficiently using these two levers to improve educational outcomes for children. Recognizing that states act as key gatekeepers to improve educational outcomes for children, it is imperative that states take immediate action to guarantee that each and every school is led by a high-quality principal. In this report, the authors analyze state policies and requirements for principal preparation approval and certification in a sample of 16 states--eight of which are "lagging," and eight that are "leading" in their efforts to act as gatekeepers to ensure that schools are led by effective leaders. An effort was made to select a large pool of states to reflect a range of practices and policies, as well as to provide variation in the context, for example, geographic representation, student demographics, and population size. State websites for sources to the three tables in this report are appended. (Contains 36 endnotes.) [For related article, "Review of "Gateways to the Principalship"," see ED528638.]
Take Your Time: Why States Should Use Education Waivers to Increase Learning Time
Author: Owen, Isabel
Date: 2011-09-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Academic Achievement,Educational Change,Teacher Evaluation,Federal Legislation,Educational Legislation,School Turnaround,Instructional Improvement,School Effectiveness,Low Achievement,Extended School Day,Time Factors (Learning),Compliance (Legal),Elementary Secondary Education

Last week President Barack Obama announced that the administration plans to waive some aspects of the No Child Left Behind law. But states have to develop solid plans to improve instruction to receive a waiver. Specifically, states must adopt college- and career-ready standards for all students, focus interventions on the bottom 15 percent of low-performing schools, and develop teacher evaluation systems using student performance. Commentators are fixated on waiving the high-profile pieces of the law such as the timeline for ensuring all students are proficient in reading and math and seeking flexibility for the highly qualified teacher targets. But a critical waiver option on expanded learning time is being overlooked in all the hoopla. Expanded learning time is a valuable tool for improving student achievement, as demonstrated by schools that have implemented this school improvement strategy. Some federal guidance is needed, though, to give states a better idea of how to use that extra time wisely. States applying for federal waivers ought to follow the example of Massachusetts, where the state carefully crafted a definition of expanded learning time to ensure the additional time was used wisely to make a difference in the experience of both teachers and students. Waivers are undeniably an opportunity for states to build on the best parts of No Child Left Behind and drive improvements in student achievement. Turning around the most troubled schools is crucial, and expanding learning time at those schools is one strategy that should not be overlooked as states build their waiver applications.
Federal Investment in Charter Schools: A Proposal for Reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
Author: Lazarin, Melissa
Date: 2011-10-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Accountability,Charter Schools,Quality Control,School Activities,Elementary Secondary Education,Federal Government,Educational Finance,Financial Support,Federal Aid,Educational Quality,Access to Education,School Role,School Turnaround,Low Achievement,School Effectiveness,Academic Standards,State Standards,Public Education,Educational Legislation,Federal Legislation,Politics of Education,Government Role,Educational Policy,Educational Equity (Finance),Grants,Academic Achievement

The charter school landscape is dramatically different today compared to when the federal government first forayed into the field in 1994. That year it established the Charter School Program as part of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, or ESEA. The Charter School Program, which is designed to support the startup of new public charter schools, was established at a time when only seven states had charter school laws on the books and 60 charter schools were in operation. Today, there are more than 5,000 charter schools in 40 states and the District of Columbia, and the long waiting lists indicate that there is a demand for many more charters. Meanwhile, concerns over quality, accountability, and access continue to be hot-button issues for the charter sector. The long overdue ESEA reauthorization presents an opportunity to take stock of the small but growing and changing role of charter schools in American education. The Obama administration has recently offered states flexibility around the current law while Congress continues to debate revising ESEA. The new flexibility does not address charter schools. So ESEA remains the main vehicle for addressing charter schools in the country. This paper outlines some of the key issues facing the charter sector at this important juncture. Congress and other policymakers should bear these issues in mind as they determine how best to support the next generation of effective charter schools. Namely, Congress should: (1) Ensure charter schools are held to the same accountability standards as traditional public schools and support the creation and expansion of high-quality charters that serve the needs of all students; (2) Ensure equitable funding for charter schools; (3) Strengthen charter authorizing practices; (4) Encourage states to lift caps on the development of high-quality charter schools; (5) Prioritize states that implement smart effective quality control policies for federal competitive dollars; and (6) Reward states and districts that engage high-quality charters in turning around their chronically underperforming schools. The effectiveness of charter schools: What does the research say? is appended. (Contains 39 endnotes.)
The Design of the Rhode Island School Funding Formula: Toward a Coherent System of Allocating State Aid to Public Schools
Author: Wong, Kenneth K.
Date: 2011-08-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Educational Finance,Charter Schools,Leadership Effectiveness,State Aid,Funding Formulas,Fiscal Capacity,Public Schools,Finance Reform,School Districts,Expenditure per Student,Low Income Groups,Poverty,Economically Disadvantaged,Students,Accountability,Access to Information,Disclosure,Educational Policy,Resource Allocation

Reforming the way a state distributes its funding to local school districts is clearly a challenging task. This paper presents the Rhode Island story on school funding reform. First, the paper begins with a short history of Rhode Island's school finance system and the key factors that called for school funding reform. Second, the paper discusses the design, the rationale, and the evidence associated with the new funding formula. Several features of the state's formula are highlighted, including the cost of core instructional services that is grounded in school funding data in the New England region, the need to focus on students who come from low-income backgrounds, a consideration of local fiscal capacity in the context of concentrated poverty at the community level, and the effort to make sure that state funds follow the child when students leave a particular district or move to a charter school. The final section of the paper recaps how the key lessons learned may be applicable to other states that face the need for funding reform in the context of fiscal constraint. In the case of Rhode Island's experience, this paper finds that: (1) Effective leadership widens the policy window; (2) Independent analysis contributes to policy reform; (3) School funding formulas must first serve the student's education purpose and should not assume a need for additional funding; and (4) Accountability and transparency should be institutionalized in implementing the formula. (Contains 4 tables and 4 endnotes.)
Investing in Education Powers U.S. Competitiveness: Education Funding Must Be Preserved
Author: Epstein, Diana
Date: 2012-00-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Academic Achievement,Educational Finance,Middle Class,Investment,Competition,Academic Standards,Economic Progress,Employment Opportunities,Administrative Principles,Educational Development,Educational Improvement,Government Role,Politics of Education,Educational Policy,Federal Aid,Federal Government,Economic Impact,Human Capital

Education is the key to American competitiveness and a strong economy, and continued federal investment in education is needed in order to support improvements in student achievement and put American economy on the path to sustained growth. The United States must continue to invest in education in order to create a system that is more equitable and that produces American students who are more competitive in the global marketplace for talent. Investment in education makes intuitive sense to the American people, but in this tough budgetary climate, it seems that every public investment is on the table to be cut. This paper discusses six reasons why continued federal investment in education should be a no-brainer as the congressional super committee negotiates this fall: (1) Global competitiveness; (2) Ensuring all students reach high standards of achievement; (3) Economic returns; (4) Jobs; (5) Savings elsewhere; and (6) Path to the middle class. Of course, investing in education isn't going to increase student achievement by itself. It matters how that money is spent, and now more than ever it is important to ensure money is spent fairly, efficiently, and effectively. Here are a couple of key principles to follow: (1) Spend scarce federal money where it is most needed; and (2) Education funding should be efficient and effective, emphasizing returns on investment. The author concludes that investment in education is a social and economic imperative, and efficient and effective federal education spending must be protected in this fall's super committee negotiations. (Contains 35 endnotes.)
Softening the Blow: Toward a Fairer Allocation of Title I Funds
Author: Miller, Raegen
Date: 2011-08-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: School Districts,Funding Formulas,Elementary Secondary Education,Poverty,Educational Experience,Incentive Grants,Federal Legislation,Resource Allocation,Financial Support

The All Children Are Equal Act introduced by Rep. Glenn Thomson (R-PA) in the House of Representatives last week tackles a flaw in the way Title I, the largest program authorized by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, or ESEA, allocates funds to school districts. The bill, which enjoys bipartisan sponsorship of Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-NC), among others, would gradually squelch an aspect of two of the program's four funding formulas that is out of sync with the purpose of Title I funds--to enhance the educational experience of children living in concentrated poverty. Congress first folded the Targeted Grant and the Education Finance Incentive Grant, or EFIG, formulas into ESEA during its 1994 reauthorization. The most recent reauthorization, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, required that appropriations over and above the level of fiscal year 2001 be allocated to school districts by means of these flawed formulas. The problem is that the Targeted Grant and EFIG formulas favor the country's largest school districts, irrespective of the concentrations of children in poverty the districts serve. The result is that small districts and those serving medium-sized cities, including many serving high concentrations of poverty, take a beating. The All Children are Equal Act would weaken the size advantage built into the Targeted Grant and EFIG formulas, thus softening the blow to low-income children in small- and medium-sized districts. Said another way, the bill would turn down the volume on the sucking sound, reducing allocations for the largest districts and increasing allocations for other districts. The bill's approach is straightforward. It would simply lower each of the weights associated with the number-weighting scheme by an amount equal to 10 percent of its current value for four consecutive years. A weight of 3.0 would be thus reduced to 2.7, 2.4, 2.1, and finally 1.8. In the end this would substantially dampen the inequity created by number-weighting, not eliminate it. (Contains 2 figures.)
Redefining Teacher Pensions: Strategically Defined Benefits for New Teachers and Fiscal Sustainability for All
Author: Miller, Raegen T.
Date: 2011-09-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: Public School Teachers,Retirement Benefits,Sustainability,Teacher Salaries,Competition,Teacher Effectiveness,Fringe Benefits,Educational Finance,Beginning Teachers,School Districts

This paper offers three constructive recommendations that apply specifically to public school teachers, the largest group of state and local government employees, and one of special importance to the long-term economic competitiveness of the country. The recommendations embrace and protect existing defined-benefit pension plans, which are under withering attack across the country, because such plans play a role in ensuring that teachers have a secure, adequate post-retirement income at the least cost to employers. Two of these recommendations safeguard the financial condition of existing defined-benefit plans. The third recommendation is motivated by concerns about the effectiveness of the teaching workforce and equity in the distribution of teaching talent. Redefining pension benefits for new teachers using a cash-balance approach serves the practical needs of existing defined-benefit pension plans. This idea also matches the mobile and varied career aspirations of prospective teachers. And most importantly, it loosens the grip that the traditional salary schedule has on teacher compensation in the broadest sense. Breaking compensation free of this grip is a necessary though not completely sufficient condition for building the teacher workforce needed to ensure U.S. economic competitiveness and equal opportunity for all children. Taking this first step by redefining teacher pensions would go a long way toward bolstering the quality of the teacher workforce and improving equity in the distribution of teaching talent. (Contains 2 figures and 81 endnotes.)
Buyer Beware: The Risks to Teacher Effectiveness from Changing Retirement Benefits
Author: Weller, Christian E.
Date: 2011-09-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: Teacher Effectiveness,Risk,Retirement,Simulation,Retirement Benefits,Costs,Correlation,Policy Analysis,Public Policy,Public School Teachers,Public Sector

The fiscal crisis in the states and localities that occurred during the Great Recession and continues in many parts of the country because of the persistent housing crisis put substantial pressure on governments to consider the efficiency of their spending. Public pensions gained substantial attention due to the need for governments to contribute additional amounts to underfunded defined-benefit pension plans when budgets were already constrained. Some observers have argued that states should take the crisis as a chance to switch retirement benefits from defined-benefit pensions to either defined-contribution or cash-balance plans. Whether average teacher effectiveness will fall or rise after switching public employees from deferred compensation under defined-benefit pensions to immediate compensation under defined-contribution or cash-balance plans will depend on the size of each of the following effects: (1) The amount of turnover; (2) The extent of the learning curve; and (3) The reaction to initial compensation changes. The interactions of these three changes in determining the effectiveness of teachers is not easy to predict. Indeed, the economic literature on teacher compensation and on pensions shows a lot of uncertainty related to each of these three factors. Researchers, however, can use simulation techniques to better understand policy changes when there is uncertainty over the size of relevant factors--as long as there is sufficient evidence to quantify the uncertainty associated with each individual factor. This issue brief summarizes the results of just such a detailed simulation. The simulations calculate the chance that the average effectiveness of teachers will decline and the average change in teacher effectiveness will fall after teachers' pensions are switched from defined-benefit plans to the two alternative retirement plans. The simulations demonstrate that changing retirement benefits carries large risks and costs with it because average teacher effectiveness could fall after a switch from defined-benefit pensions to alternative retirement benefits. Those interested in raising teacher effectiveness may be better served finding other policy levers than switching retirement benefits. (Contains 1 figure, 2 tables, and 27 endnotes.)
Students Training for Academic Readiness (STAR): Year Three Evaluation Report. Executive Summary
Author: Texas Center for Educational Research (TCER)
Date: 2010-06-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: College Preparation,Program Effectiveness,Evaluation,Student Attitudes,Grants,School Readiness,Student Characteristics,Teacher Characteristics,Parents,Program Implementation,Academic Achievement,Access to Education,Low Income Groups,Postsecondary Education,Access to Information,School Districts,Minority Group Children,Limited English Speaking,Hispanic American Students,Educational Improvement,Institutional Cooperation,Partnerships in Education,Student Needs,Academic Standards,School District Wealth,Secondary School Students,Faculty Development,Learner Engagement,School Culture,Barriers,Professional Development

This executive summary presents findings from the Year 3 evaluation of Texas' state-level Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs, or GEAR UP, grant. GEAR UP grant requirements include an evaluation component designed to assess program effectiveness and to measure progress toward project goals. To this end, the evaluation considers the following research questions: (1) What are the characteristics of participating STAR schools, students, teachers, and parents?; (2) How is STAR implemented across participating campuses?; and (3) What are the effects of STAR implementation on indicators of student achievement and college preparation? [For the full report, &quot;Students Training for Academic Readiness (STAR): Year Three Evaluation Report,&quot; see ED535984.]
Partnerships between Charter Schools and Other Organizations. A Guide for State Policymakers
Author: Smith, Joanna
Date: 2008-10-00
Type: Guides - Non-Classroom
Subjects: Charter Schools,School Community Relationship,Community Involvement,School Law,State Legislation,Policy Formation,State Officials,Parochial Schools,Partnerships in Education

This state policy guide looks at partnerships between charter schools and community, faith-based, and for-profit organizations as one way for these schools to access essential goods and services. Each type of partnership poses specific challenges and opportunities, and, based on a review of charter school legislation and interviews with state charter school administrators, the guide explores ways in which state laws and policies address partnership development. Community involvement is included as one intention of the charter school law in 13 states. Fifteen states require evidence of community involvement or support in the charter school application, and 5 states encourage community involvement on the charter school board. State laws and policies are more restrictive around partnerships between charter schools and faith-based organizations: 15 states prohibit faith-based organizations from applying to open a charter school, 26 states include broad restrictions against the involvement of faith-based organizations with charter schools, and 3 states allow partnerships with faith-based organizations solely for facility use. For-profit involvement is restricted in some cases and allowed in others: Laws in 16 states prohibit for-profit organizations from applying to open a charter school; in two states, charter schools must report any involvement with for-profit entities. Thirteen states allow partnerships with for-profit organizations for facilities, 17 states allow partnerships for services, and three states allow for-profit organizations to apply to open a charter school. The guide outlines the pros and cons of each policy option with illustrative examples from existing state law and practice. It raises issues that state policymakers may want to consider related to charter school partnerships and aims to help them identify approaches to partnerships that best meet the needs of charter schools in their states. (Contains 3 tables, 9 resources and 4 footnotes.) [This paper was written with the assistance from Priscilla Wohlstetter and Guilbert Hentschke.]