ethanporcaro/eric-fulltext-meta huggingface dataset:
National Trends: Enhancing Education through Technology--No Child Left Behind, Title II D--Year Two in Review
Author: Lemke, Cheryl
Date: 2005-03-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: Educational Trends,State Policy,Sustainability,Innovation,Technical Assistance,Achievement Gap,Educational Technology,Grants,Federal Legislation,Rural Schools,Educational Research,Technology Uses in Education,Technology Integration,Federal Programs,National Surveys,State Surveys,Administrators,Administrator Attitudes,Online Surveys,Data Analysis,Program Implementation,Program Effectiveness,Program Administration,Objectives,Educational Finance,Educational Policy,School Districts,Elementary Secondary Education,Inservice Teacher Education,Partnerships in Education,State Government,Leadership

The State Educational Technology Directors Association (SETDA) is pleased to present the findings of the second annual National Trends Report. SETDA commissioned the Metiri Group for a second consecutive year to conduct a national survey in the fall of 2004 on the second year implementation of the No Child Left Behind, Title II, Part D, Enhancing Education Through Technology (EETT) program and on general state policy trends in educational technology. The findings in the 2005 report are based on surveys from 49 states and the District of Columbia, representing 15,478 LEAs and 99% of the federal dollars allocated across the United States in 2003-2004. Data from the first annual National Report for Round 1 serves as a baseline for trends and represented a similar population (46 states and the District of Columbia). In Round 2 the respondent states and the District of Columbia awarded 1,654 competitive grants and 12,933 formula grants together with the 5% of administrative support funds expended at the state level total $612,478,264. Seven major findings emerged from the data analysis: (1) Strategies are in Place to Close the Achievement Gap Through Technology; (2) A Focus on New Types of Professional Development; (3) Doing More with Less through Collaborations and Partnerships; (4) The Formula Grants Sustain; The Competitive Grants Innovate; (5) Grappling with Evaluation and Research; (6) Through Leadership, A Knowledge Base Is Emerging; and (7) In Many States, NCLB II D is the Only Source of Funding for Technology. The findings from SETDA's national survey provide states, local school districts, policymakers, and the U.S. Department of Education with insights into the following questions: (1) Is the Title II D program helping to close the achievement gap, leading to the attainment of NCLB II D goals?; (2) How are grant recipients across the nation structuring programs to meet NCLB II D goals?; and (3) What administrative approaches by states are most effective in guiding and supporting LEAs toward NCLB goals? (Contains 13 figures and 1 table.) [For the &quot;National Trends: Enhancing Education through Technology--No Child Left Behind Title II D--Year One in Review,&quot; see ED537536.]
National Student Aid Profile: Overview of 2012 Federal Programs
Author: National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators (NASFAA)
Date: 2012-00-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Educational Policy,Profiles,Student Financial Aid,Federal Programs,Federal Aid,Income,College Students,Tuition,Tax Credits,Higher Education,Federal Legislation,Educational Legislation,Grants,Work Study Programs,Student Loan Programs,Financial Aid Applicants,Undergraduate Students,Graduate Students,Need Analysis (Student Financial Aid)

From 2000-2001 to 2010-2011, the total amount of federal financial aid awarded to students under Title IV of the Higher Education Act (HEA) jumped from $64.0 billion to an estimated $169.1 billion, a 10-year increase of 164%. For 2010-2011, the Title IV programs accounted for 72% of the $235 billion in total financial aid received by college students. However, despite the increasing importance of federal student aid, the majority of Americans have little knowledge of the Title IV programs or the processes they need to follow to apply for these funds. To help increase knowledge of these vital programs, the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators (NASFAA) has produced the &quot;National Student Aid Profile: Overview of 2012 Federal Programs.&quot; This report provides detailed information about the major programs authorized under Title IV of the HEA, including: (1) descriptions of the federal student aid programs; (2) recent trends in federal program appropriations; (3) income levels of students and families who receive aid; and (4) a description of the federal student aid application process. The information used for the National Profile is the latest data available from the U.S. Department of Education and The College Board. In some instances, the most recent funding data were for the FY2012 and recipient data were for the 2007-2008 academic year. In addition to the Title IV programs, college students and their families may qualify for financial assistance from other federal sources, such as tuition tax credits, tax-advantaged education savings accounts (including the Coverdell Education Savings Account), and grants and loans from other federal programs. While these other sources are important, they are not included in this report because the bulk of the federal funds provided to college students and their families is provided through programs authorized by Title IV of the HEA. (Contains 9 tables and 10 figures.)
Deposits/Confirmed Students as of May 1 at Four-Year Institutions, 2010. Noel-Levitz Report on Undergraduate Enrollment Trends
Author: Noel-Levitz, Inc.
Date: 2010-00-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: Undergraduate Students,Enrollment Trends,Student Attrition,College Admission,College Applicants,Public Colleges,Private Colleges,Small Colleges,Regional Characteristics,Economic Impact,Student Costs,Student Financial Aid,School Choice,School Surveys

This report provides an early indication of fall 2010 enrollments in higher education by documenting changes in the numbers of deposited/confirmed students at four-year colleges and universities as of May 1, 2010, versus May 1, 2009, along with changes in admitted students, applicants, and projected summer melt. The report is based on a Web-based poll Noel-Levitz conducted of college and university admissions offices at accredited, four-year postsecondary institutions. The poll was conducted between May 4 and May 17, 2010, as part of Noel-Levitz's ongoing series of benchmark polls. Highlights from the findings: (1) May 1 deposits/confirmations from first-year, first-time-in-college students increased for two-thirds of institutions, but the remaining third that saw declines included nearly half of small public institutions and half of Midwest institutions; (2) Two-thirds of respondents expected higher-than-usual summer melt, led by nearly three-quarters of respondents from small public institutions; (3) Yield rates (from admitted to deposited/confirmed) rose for only about half of institutions. In addition, yield rates for public institutions were consistently higher than they were for private institutions, though more private institutions than public institutions reported increases; (4) The majority of large institutions met their May 1 goal for deposits/confirmations, but the majority of small institutions fell short; (5) Most institutions admitted more students and received more applications in 2010 than in 2009; and (6) Deposits/confirmations came in slower than they normally do for over half of public institutions. (Contains 9 tables.)
National Online Learners Priorities Report. Research Report, 2011
Author: Noel-Levitz, Inc.
Date: 2011-00-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: Undergraduate Students,Graduate Students,Online Courses,Educational Technology,Computer Uses in Education,Internet,Enrollment Trends,Student Characteristics,Comparative Analysis,Conventional Instruction,Satisfaction,Student Attitudes,Expectation,Gender Differences,Age Differences,Student Personnel Services,Paying for College

The 2011 National Online Learners Priorities Report presents the responses to the Noel-Levitz Priorities Survey for Online Learners[TM] (PSOL) of 99,040 students from 108 institutions. The results include online learner responses over a three-year time period, from the fall of 2008 through the spring of 2011. Students enrolled primarily online comprise approximately 85,000 of these students, while students enrolled primarily on campus include approximately 12,000 students. The remaining students did not indicate an enrollment status. There are 64,500 undergraduate students in the dataset and nearly 29,000 graduate level students, with the remaining students indicating "other" as their class level. The 2011 National Online Learners Priorities Report includes the following data analyses: (1) A demographic overview to identify who online learners are; (2) The scales in order of importance; (3) Strengths and challenges; (4) A comparison of students enrolled primarily online with those enrolled primarily on campus as well as a comparison of undergraduate and graduate students; (5) A review of enrollment factors in order of importance; and (6) Summary scores. Appended are: (1) The Scales; (2) Matrix for Prioritizing Action; (3) Sample Items; and (4) Institutional Participants.
E-Recruiting Practices and Trends at Four-Year and Two-Year Institutions, 2010. Noel-Levitz Report on Undergraduate Enrollment Trends
Author: Noel-Levitz, Inc.
Date: 2010-00-00
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: Undergraduate Students,Student Recruitment,College Applicants,Computer Mediated Communication,Social Networks,Web Sites,Electronic Publishing,Telecommunications,Electronic Mail,Budgets,Public Colleges,Private Colleges,Two Year Colleges,College Admission,School Surveys

This report documents the upward trend in "secret shopping" among today's prospective student Web users, along with the latest changes in electronic communications technologies used by college and university admissions offices. The report is based on a survey of college and university enrollment and admissions officers across the U.S. in March 2010. For context, trend data from similar polls conducted in 2008 and 2006 are also included in this study, along with findings from a 2010 report on prospective students' perceptions and behaviors. Among the highlights: (1) "Secret shoppers" are becoming more prevalent in higher education, as now fully one-third of students applying to public institutions are waiting until they apply to make themselves known to the institution. In addition, one-quarter of applicants to private institutions are doing so; (2) Many colleges and universities are offering links to social media resources like Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn, but prospective students believe even more institutions should be getting on board with social media; (3) Colleges and universities are now using the Web, cell phones, and e-mail more regularly to communicate with students and parents; (4) Text messaging has become more popular at private institutions but less popular at public institutions; and (5) Budgets for maintaining admissions-specific Web content are increasing at private institutions, while budgets at public institutions are generally being kept in check.
Application Counts at Four-Year and Two-Year Institutions, 2010. Noel-Levitz Report on Undergraduate Enrollment Trends
Author: Noel-Levitz, Inc.
Date: 2010-00-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: Colleges,Enrollment Trends,College Applicants,College Bound Students,College Freshmen,Online Surveys,Comparative Analysis,Benchmarking

Amid the uncertain economy, how much were undergraduate applications up or down in early March 2010 compared to a year earlier? To find out, Noel-Levitz conducted a Web-based poll of accredited postsecondary institutions across the U.S. as part of the firm's ongoing series of benchmark poll reports. The poll was conducted between March 2, 2010, and March 17, 2010. Highlights from the findings: (1) For three-quarters of respondents, applications received from first-year, first-time-in-college (FTIC) undergraduates for fall 2010 were even or running ahead compared to a year earlier--"but there was considerable variability in the outcomes reported"; (2) Compared to four-year institutions, two-year institutions reported the greatest variability in applications, with 25 percent seeing no change or a decline in applications and 25 percent reporting increases of 50 percent or more; and (3) Among four-year institutions, it was evident that institutions with smaller enrollments experienced greater variability in their results when compared to institutions with larger enrolments. (Contains 1 table.)
Admissions Funnel Benchmarks for Four-Year Public and Private Institutions, 2010. Noel-Levitz Report on Undergraduate Enrollment Trends
Author: Noel-Levitz, Inc.
Date: 2010-00-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: Transfer Students,Private Colleges,Universities,Enrollment Trends,Higher Education,College Admission,Public Colleges,Benchmarking,Online Surveys,College Applicants,College Freshmen,College Bound Students

To assist campuses with accurately forecasting enrollments, this report continues Noel-Levitz's long-standing research into admissions funnel conversion and yield rates. The report is based on a Web-based survey of college and university admissions officials in September and October, 2010, in which respondents reported fall 2010 and fall 2009 data. For context, data from previous Noel-Levitz surveys are offered for comparison. Among the highlights: (1) Yield rates (from admit to enroll) for first-year and transfer students continued their downward trend for private colleges, while yield rates for public universities are either leveling off or following no noticeable trend lines; (2) The rising "secret shopper" applicant trend reported earlier by Noel-Levitz--and the corresponding rise in inquiry-to-applicant conversion rates for first-year and transfer students--continued to gain steam. For fall 2010, fully one-third of first-year applicants and approximately half of transfer applicants did not identify themselves to their chosen institution(s) until they submitted an application; (3) Admitted, first-year applicants who applied online continued to yield at lower rates than mail-in admitted applicants, while first-year, in-state admitted applicants continued to yield at higher rates than out-of-state and international admitted applicants; and (4) Up to 22 percent of first-year students failed to complete their applications, led by online applicants at private colleges. Appended are: (1) Additional findings; and (2) How to use the benchmarks in this report. (Contains 15 tables and 4 footnotes.)
National Adult Learners Satisfaction-Priorities Report. Research Report, 2011
Author: Noel-Levitz, Inc.
Date: 2011-00-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: Educational Experience,Adult Students,Student Attitudes,Student Surveys,Satisfaction,Private Colleges,Public Colleges,Community Colleges,Technical Institutes,Enrollment,Educational Assessment,Rating Scales

The 2011 National Adult Learners Satisfaction-Priorities Report presents the responses to the Adult Learner Inventory[TM] (ALI) of 29,679 students from 61 four-year private and public as well as 4,749 students from 18 two-year community and technical colleges. The results include adult learner responses over a three-year time period, from fall of 2008 through spring of 2011. The ALI was developed by Noel-Levitz and CAEL (Council for Adult and Experiential Learning). CAEL is a non-profit organization dedicated to expanding lifelong learning opportunities for adults. The 2011 National Adult Learners Satisfaction-Priorities Report includes the following data analyses: (1) The scales in order of importance; (2) Strengths and challenges; (3) A review of enrollment factors in order of importance; and (4) Summary scores. Appended are: (1) Sample Items; (2) Matrix for Prioritizing Action; and (3) Institutional Participants.
National Parent Satisfaction and Priorities Report: Results from the New Parent Satisfaction Inventory[TM]. Research Report, 2011
Author: Noel-Levitz, Inc.
Date: 2011-00-00
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: Student Attitudes,Parents,Public Colleges,Private Colleges,Parent Attitudes,Parent Surveys,Demography,Comparative Analysis,Satisfaction,Academic Persistence,Measures (Individuals),Rating Scales,Enrollment

The 2011 National Parent Satisfaction and Priorities Report presents the responses to the new Noel-Levitz Parent Satisfaction Inventory[TM] (PSI) which were gathered in the first two years of the instrument's availability. The report reflects data from 6,237 parents/guardians from nineteen four-year colleges and universities. Sixteen of the institutions are four-year private schools and three are four-year publics. The results were captured between November 2009 and May 2011. Since this is a small data set, these results may not be representative of parents nationally, but the data do provide a starting point for understanding the priorities of parents. The 2011 National Parent Satisfaction and Priorities Report includes the following data analyses: (1) A demographic overview of parents and their students; (2) The scales in order of importance; (3) Strengths and challenges; (4) Comparison of parent and student perceptions; (5) A review of enrollment factors in order of importance; and (6) Summary scores. Appended are: (1) The Scales; (2) Matrix for Prioritizing Action; (3) Sample Items; and (4) Institutional Participants. (Contains 2 footnotes.)
How Strong Are U.S. Teacher Unions? A State-by-State Comparison
Author: Winkler, Amber M.
Date: 2012-10-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: Elementary Secondary Education,Teaching (Occupation),Unions,Role,National Competency Tests,Politics of Education,Educational Change,State Action,Comparative Analysis,Teacher Associations,Power Structure,Program Effectiveness,Interests,Collective Bargaining,Job Security,School Restructuring

In recent years, debates over school reform have increasingly focused on the role of teacher unions in the changing landscape of American K-12 education. On one hand, critics argue that these unions, using their powerful grip on education politics and policy to great effect, bear primary responsibility for blocking states' efforts to put into place overdue reforms that will drive major-league gains in the educational system. Such critics contend that the unions generally succeed at preserving teacher job security and other interests, and do so at the expense of improved opportunities for kids. On the other side, the authors find union defenders who stoutly maintain that these organizations are bulwarks of professionalism in education, that their power is greatly exaggerated, that their opposition to misguided reforms is warranted, and that they couldn't possibly account for achievement woes--considering that highly unionized states perform at least as well as any others (and better than many) on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) and other indicators. This debate has taken on an international aspect, too, as critics of U.S. reform initiatives (and defenders of unions) point out that teachers are unionized all over the world, including nearly all the countries that surpass the U.S. on comparative achievement measures such as the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) and Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). Both sides agree that, for better or worse, teacher unions look out for teacher interests. This study sheds light on how they use politics to do this, by measuring teacher union strength, state by state, more comprehensively than any other study to date. It sought answers to three questions: (1) What elements are potential sources of a union's strength (i.e., inputs)?; (2) How might unions wield power in terms of behavior and conduct (i.e., processes and activities)?; and (3) What are signs that they have gotten their way (i.e., outcomes)? To gauge union strength at the state level, the authors gathered and synthesized data for thirty-seven different variables across five broad areas: (1) Resources and Membership; (2) Involvement in Politics; (3) Scope of Bargaining; (4) State Policies; and (5) Perceived Influence. Appended are: (1) Detailed Methodology and Rationale; and (2) State-Level NEA and AFT Affiliates. Individual state reports contain tables, footnotes and endnotes. [Foreword by Chester E. Finn, Jr. and Michael J. Petrilli. Additional funding for this paper was provided by Education Reform Now.]
Supporting Policy and Program Decisions: Recommendations for Conducting High Quality Systematic Evidence Reviews. Issue Brief
Author: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.
Date: 2012-10-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Evidence,Research,State of the Art Reviews,Search Strategies,Best Practices,Standards,Synthesis,Policy Analysis,Program Effectiveness

Policy and program decisions typically involve selecting one choice from among a set of options, and research about the effect of those options can help inform the decision process. However, for the research to be useful, decision makers need a way of drawing accurate lessons from what often can be a large assortment of relevant studies. Systematic reviews can be particularly useful in this process because they identify, assess, and synthesize key pieces of evidence on policy or program effectiveness. This brief provides recommendations for conducting high quality systematic reviews. We hope that the recommendations will increase the number of such reviews, to provide decision makers with a greater number of useful evidence summaries that can inform decision making.