ethanporcaro/eric-fulltext-meta huggingface dataset:
Measuring Social Return on Investment for Community Schools: A Practical Guide
Author: Martinez, Laura
Date: 2013-00-00
Type: Guides - Non-Classroom
Subjects: Outcomes of Education,Community Schools,Outcome Measures,Integrated Services,Educational Research,Data Collection,Data Analysis,Case Studies,Urban Schools,Educational Change,Institutional Characteristics,Models,Computation,Elementary Schools,Middle Schools

Social return on investment (SROI) analysis offers a practical new approach for measuring and communicating the value of outcomes achieved by programs that provide social, health, and educational services to children and their families. This guide highlights the key steps in conducting SROI research, issues in data-gathering and analysis, as well as lessons learned from a case study of two New York City community schools: (1) PS 5; and (2) Salomé Ureña. The guide also helps educators and community leaders understand how to present and use SROI findings to make a strong case for investments to sustain and scale up these promising education reform initiatives. The following are appended: (1) Data Inventory Worksheet; and (2) Financial Proxies by Outcome. [For the full study &quot;Measuring Social Return on Investment for Community Schools: A Case Study,&quot; see ED561996.]
Federal Student Loans: Impact of Loan Limit Increases on College Prices Is Difficult to Discern. Report to Congressional Committees. GAO-14-7
Author: Nowicki, Jacqueline M.
Date: 2014-02-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: Federal Aid,Student Loan Programs,Student Financial Aid,Tuition,Fees,Costs,Higher Education,Statistical Analysis,Interviews,College Faculty,Paying for College,Enrollment,Undergraduate Students,Regression (Statistics),Geographic Location,College Attendance,Racial Differences,Ethnic Groups,Databases,Tax Credits,State Aid,Grants,Institutional Characteristics

For more than a decade, college prices have been rising consistently and have continued to rise at a gradual pace after the Stafford loan limit increases were enacted in 2008 and 2009. However, it is difficult to determine if a direct relationship exists between increases in college prices and the Stafford loan limit increases because of the confluence of many other factors that occurred around the time the loan limit increases took effect. For this final report, U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) examined: (1) the extent to which, if any, the Stafford loan limit increases affected tuition, fees and room and board prices at institutions of higher education; and (2) the trends in private student loan borrowing since the loan limits took effect. GAO developed a statistical model to explore whether the loan limit increases in academic years 2007-08 and 2008-09 had an impact on college prices in subsequent years. GAO analyzed data from the Department of Education (Education) and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), and interviewed officials from eight higher education institutions that represented a mix of college sectors in different regions of the country, three of the largest private student lenders, federal officials, and subject matter specialists. Appended are: (1) Objectives, Scope, and Methodology; (2) Analysis of the Relationship between Student Loan Limit Increases and Tuition; (3) Additional Data on College Prices and Student Enrollment; (4) Sample Self-Certification Form for Private Loan Applicant; and (5) GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgements. [In addition to GAO contact, Jacqueline M. Nowicki, Sherri Doughty, Assistant Director, Kristy Kennedy, Sandra Baxter, Patrick Dudley, John Karikari, and John W. Mingus made significant contributions to this report. Also contributing to this report were Jessica Botsford, Melissa H. Emrey Arras, Lorraine Ettaro, Mimi Nguyen, and Kathleen L. Van Gelder.]
Federal Student Loans: Better Oversight Could Improve Defaulted Loan Rehabilitation. Report to Congressional Requesters. GAO-14-256
Author: Emrey-Arras, Melissa
Date: 2014-03-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: Federal Aid,Student Financial Aid,Student Loan Programs,Loan Default,Debt (Financial),Loan Repayment,Federal Government,Federal Legislation,Interviews,Information Systems,Progress Monitoring,Governance,Accountability,Credit (Finance)

The Department of Education (Education) relies on collection agencies to assist borrowers in rehabilitating defaulted student loans, which allows borrowers who make nine on-time monthly payments within 10 months to have the default removed from their credit reports. Education works with 22 collection agencies to locate borrowers and explain repayment options, including rehabilitation. The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) was asked to review Education's loan rehabilitation process. This report examines: (1) how Education assists borrowers in rehabilitating defaulted student loans; (2) how the upgrade of its defaulted loan information system affected loan rehabilitation; and (3) how Education oversees private collection agencies in implementing loan rehabilitation. GAO reviewed Education's policies, procedures and guidance; contracts and monitoring records for the defaulted loan information system contractor and 22 collection agencies; collections and rehabilitation data; and relevant federal laws and regulations. GAO interviewed Education officials, representatives of borrower advocacy groups, and visited 6 selected collection agencies, based on their loan volume and geographic location. GAO recommends that Education take steps to track loan rehabilitation performance data and improve oversight of its system contractor and collection agencies. Education agreed with GAO's recommendations. Appended are: (1) Comments from the Department of Education; and (2) GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments. [In addition to GAO contact, Melissa Emrey-Arras, individuals making key contributions to this report were: Debra Prescott, Assistant Director; Kurt Burgeson; Maria Gaona; and Jason Palmer. In addition, key support was provided by James Bennett, Deborah Bland, Jessica Botsford, Jason Bromberg, Timothy DiNapoli, Holly Dye, Hedieh Fusfield, Kristine Hassinger, Anne McDonough-Hughes, Melissa Jaynes, Lara Laufer, Charlene Lindsay, Jean McSween, Christie Motley, Kathryn O'Dea Lamas, Dae Park, David Perkins, Kenneth Rupar, Linda Sanders, Sylvia Schatz, Brian Schwartz, and Charles Youman.]
Second Annual Review of the Master Plan for Postsecondary Education in Louisiana: 2011
Author: Louisiana Board of Regents
Date: 2013-08-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: Postsecondary Education,Master Plans,Educational Attainment,Research,Efficiency,Accountability,College Preparation,High School Graduates,Expenditures,Educational Finance,Funding Formulas,Public Education,Remedial Instruction,Dual Enrollment,School Holding Power,Two Year College Students,Adult Students,Enrollment

In 2011, the Board of Regents (BoR), through the development and implementation of the Master Plan, advanced its vision for the future of postsecondary education by adopting the following three broad goals: (1) Increase the educational attainment of the State's adult population to the Southern Regional Education Board (SREB) States' average by 2025; (2) Invest strategically in university research; and (3) Achieve greater efficiency and accountability in the postsecondary education system. The Plan outlines 19 objectives, 71 activities, and 97 performance measures to achieve these goals. In this second annual evaluation of the 2011 Master Plan it reports: (1) In the first and second years of implementation, progress towards Goal 1 is evident in the increased preparation of high school graduates; (2) In the first and second years of Master Plan reporting, Goal 2 metrics have remained relatively stable, with several research metrics, particularly those related to campus research expenditures, showing significant growth over baseline reporting. However, data reveals that from baseline year to year 2 of Master Plan reporting, Louisiana's research universities reported 107 less research-active faculty (faculty holding active R&amp;D grants and contracts); and (3) Progress towards Goal 3 has occurred through the continued implementation of the performance-based funding formula, participation in the second year of Complete College American (CCA) reporting, the implementation of an annual academic program review process, and the continued development of a remedial education pilot program. During the last two years of Master Plan reporting, most institutions met their targeted GRAD Act goals, and were subsequently awarded increased tuition authority and retained their performance funding. The report concludes with a summary and analysis data of the second year of implementation of the 2011 Master Plan for the performance measures within each of the three overarching goals. [See: Third Annual Evaluation at ED562002.]
Women in STEM Research: Federal Agencies Differ in the Data They Collect on Grant Applicants. GAO-15-291R STEM Research
Author: US Government Accountability Office
Date: 2015-03-17
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: STEM Education,Females,Scientific Research,Federal Programs,Public Agencies,Data Collection,Grants,Federal Aid,Demography,Gender Differences,Program Proposals

Since the enactment of Title IX in 1972--which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in education programs and activities receiving any federal financial assistance--women have made significant gains in many academic fields. However, recent research shows that women continue to lag behind men in academic and professional advancement in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields. This report provides the results of the first part of an ongoing review related to the representation of women in federal STEM research programs. Specifically, this report focuses on the extent to which federal agencies collect data that could be used to analyze differences, if any, in federal grants to women and men in STEM fields. Six federal agencies that together funded approximately 90 percent of the federal government's investment in basic and applied research in fiscal year 2010 through 2012 were selected for review: (1) the Department of Agriculture-National Institute of Food and Agriculture (USDA-NIFA); (2) the Department of Defense (DOD); (3) the Department of Energy (DOE); (4) the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA); (5) the National Institutes of Health4 (NIH); and (6) the National Science Foundation (NSF). At these six agencies, data were collected from 16 different entities that administer grant programs for research in STEM fields. Three of the six federal grant-making agencies reviewed--the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, and the Department of Agriculture-National Institute of Food and Agriculture--routinely collect demographic information about the individual researchers who apply for and receive federal grants. Further, these agencies have data systems that could facilitate analysis of differences, if any, in grants made to women and men. The three agencies stated they use this demographic information for research and internal analysis of their applicant pool. The other three agencies in the review--the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, and NASA--do not routinely collect demographic information about researchers who submit grant proposals and receive awards. [Major contributors to this report were Erin M. Godtland (Assistant Director), Nora Boretti (Analyst in Charge), and Jessica K. Rider. Also contributing to this report were James Bennett, Deborah Bland, David Chrisinger, William Egar, Ashley McCall, Amy Moran Lowe, Lindsay Read, James Rebbe, Douglas Sloane, Walter Vance, and David Watsula.]
Third Annual Review of the Master Plan for Postsecondary Education in Louisiana: 2011
Author: Louisiana Board of Regents
Date: 2014-08-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: Postsecondary Education,Master Plans,Educational Attainment,Research,Efficiency,Accountability,College Preparation,High School Graduates,Transfer Programs,Graduation Rate,Expenditures,Educational Finance,Funding Formulas,Public Education

In 2011, the Board of Regents (BoR), through the development and implementation of the Master Plan, advanced its vision for the future of postsecondary education by adopting the following three broad goals: (1) Increase the educational attainment of the State's adult population to the Southern Regional Education Board (SREB) States' average by 2025; (2) Invest strategically in university research; and (3) Achieve greater efficiency and accountability in the postsecondary education system. The Plan outlines objectives, activities, and performance measures to achieve these goals. Through these goals, related activities, and the measurable performance metrics, the Plan assures that its implementation will be monitored, evaluated, and reported throughout its duration. This is the third annual evaluation of the 2011 Master Plan and it reports: (1) In the first three years of Master Plan implementation, progress toward Goal 1 is evident in the increased preparation of high school graduates, the increasing number of students who are participating in the Louisiana Transfer degree program, and increasing graduation rates at public postsecondary institutions.; (2) In the first and second years of Master Plan reporting, Goal 2 metrics have remained relatively stable, with several research metrics, particularly those related to campus research expenditures, showing significant growth over baseline reporting. Unfortunately, recent significant reductions to higher education's state general fund appropriations have reduced campuses' discretionary funds to support faculty research projects, lab upgrades, start-up packages, library acquisitions, and other critical elements in advancing the culture and practice of state-of-the-art research; and (3) Progress towards Goal 3 has occurred through the continued implementation of the performance-based funding formula, participation in the second year of Complete College American (CCA) reporting, the implementation of an annual academic program review process, and the continued assessment of the BoR remedial education pilot program. In addition, during the last three years of Master Plan reporting, most institutions met their targeted GRAD Act goals, and were subsequently awarded increased tuition authority and retained their performance funding. The report concludes with a summary and analysis data of the second year of implementation of the 2011 Master Plan for the performance measures within each of the three overarching goals. Collectively and measured against the baseline, these data tell a story about the progress being made in Louisiana public postsecondary education and the areas which will require increasing focus in the coming years. [See: Second Annual Evaluation at ED562000.]
Higher Education: Better Management of Federal Grant and Loan Forgiveness Programs for Teachers Needed to Improve Participant Outcomes. Report to Congressional Requesters. GAO-15-314
Author: Nowicki, Jacqueline M.
Date: 2015-02-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: Higher Education,Student Loan Programs,Grants,Loan Default,Program Administration,Program Evaluation,Federal Legislation,Interviews,Stakeholders,Measures (Individuals),Focus Groups,Public Officials,School Personnel,College Students,Ombudsmen

Education estimates 430,000 new teachers will be needed by 2020. It administers three programs that may help attract and retain qualified teachers by helping them finance their education. However, little is known about the efficacy of these programs. GAO was asked to examine the TEACH Grant and two loan forgiveness programs. This report examines (1) the number of current and potential participants in the three teacher aid programs and the extent to which TEACH Grant recipients satisfy grant requirements; (2) what selected schools, teachers, and students identified as benefits and challenges of program participation; and (3) the extent to which Education has taken steps to effectively manage and evaluate these programs. GAO reviewed applicable federal laws, regulations, and documents; analyzed participation data for the past decade; and interviewed stakeholders including agency officials, loan servicers, and students. GAO also held eight nongeneralizable focus groups with officials from 58 colleges representing a range of sizes. GAO also reviewed Ombudsman data covering the former and current TEACH Grant servicers from October 2011 to March 2014. GAO recommends, among other things, that Education assess TEACH Grant participants' failure to meet grant requirements, examine why erroneous TEACH grant-to-loan conversions occurred, disseminate information on the TEACH grant-to-loan dispute process, and establish program performance measures. Education agreed with GAO's recommendations. The following are appended: (1) Objectives, Scope, and Methodology; (2) Comments from the U.S. Department of Education; and (3) GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments. [In addition to GAO contact, Jacqueline M. Nowicki, Janet Mascia, Assistant Director; Rachel Beers, Analyst-in-Charge; Justin Dunleavy, and Robin Marion made significant contributions to this report. Also contributing to this report were Susan Aschoff, Deborah K. Bland, Ben Bolitzer, Alex Galuten, Stuart Kaufman, John Mingus, Mimi Nguyen, Mark F. Ramage, Kathleen van Gelder, Walter Vance, and Amber Yancey-Carroll.]
2015 Legislative Report on the Postsecondary Progress and Success of High School Graduates
Author: Bautsch, Brenda
Date: 2015-03-13
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: High School Graduates,Enrollment,Postsecondary Education,College Freshmen,School Holding Power,Educational Attainment,In State Students,Out of State Students,Student Financial Aid,Grade Point Average,College Credits,Student Characteristics,Two Year Colleges,Colleges,Ethnicity,Sex

Pursuant to statute (23-1-113 [9] C.R.S), the Colorado Department of Higher Education (CDHE) is required to submit a report concerning the postsecondary academic progress and success of the preceding six high school graduating classes. Due to limitations on the availability of data, this report covers the high school graduating classes of 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013. Future reports will include additional data as they are available to the Department. This report has been submitted to the Education Committees of the Senate and House of Representatives and to the State Board of Education. This report, the third of its kind, consists of four parts: (1) Postsecondary enrollment trends, including information on in-state and out-of-state enrollment and institution type, disaggregated by ethnicity and gender; (2) Information on first-year college students in Colorado, including financial aid status, average grade point average, credit accumulation and degree level, disaggregated by ethnicity and gender; (3) First year retention rates; and (4) 4. Information on postsecondary credential attainment. The following are appended: (1) District-Level Statistics; and (2) Technical Information. [For &quot;2014 Legislative Report on the Postsecondary Progress and Success of High School Graduates,&quot; see ED555878.]
Tuition and Fees Report: Fiscal Year 2014-15
Author: Colorado Department of Higher Education
Date: 2015-01-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: Public Colleges,Tuition,Fees,In State Students,Out of State Students,Undergraduate Students,Graduate Students,Community Colleges

Tuition policy for Colorado's public institutions has been impacted by two statutory requirements that were added in the 2014 legislative session. First, the Governor requested, and the General Assembly approved in the College Affordability Act (SB14-001), a historic $60 million (11 percent) increase for public institutions of higher education. Tied to the 11 percent operating increase was a requirement that resident tuition rate increases be capped at no more than 6 percent for FY 2014-15 and FY 2015-16. All Colorado public institutions of higher education again complied with the requirements of tuition restraint in FY 2014-15. Next, HB 14-1319 was passed by the Colorado General Assembly and signed by the Governor in May 2014. The bill eliminated the existing funding structure for how state General Fund dollars are allocated to public institutions of higher education as of Fiscal Year 2015-16, and directed the Colorado Commission on Higher Education (CCHE) to develop and adopt a new base funding allocation formula for these funds within specified parameters. HB 14-1319 also requires that the Colorado Commission on Higher Education (CCHE) provide tuition policy recommendations to the General Assembly by November 1, 2015. Using the HB 14-1319 project structure, CDHE has established the Cost Driver Analysis expert team to provide the CCHE with a thoughtful analysis of what is driving costs of higher education in Colorado, which will be used to inform the Commission's tuition policy recommendations. In accordance with C.R.S. § 23-1-105.5(2), this report provides detailed information on the tuition and fee rates Colorado public institutions of higher education charged to resident and nonresident students in FY 2014-15. It is the product of comprehensive tuition and fee schedules collected annually from Colorado's public institutions of higher education. This report focuses on tuition and fee rates charged to resident undergraduate students but the attached summary tables provide greater detail and information for resident and non-resident rates as well as graduate and professional program rates. Key findings include: (1) For FY 2014-15, the median percentage increase in resident tuition (5%) was the lowest since FY 2006-07 (2.5%); (2) In FY2014-15, the average increase in tuition and mandatory fees for Colorado resident students was $289 (4.7%) over FY 2013-14. The average increase at four year institutions was $462 (5.7%) and $150 (3.8%) at community colleges; and (3) Tuition and mandatory fees for non-resident students increased by an average of $808, (4.4%), or $1,238 (6.0%) at four year institutions and $450 (3.0%) at community colleges. The Appendix provides detailed tables on current tuition and fees for resident and non-resident classified undergraduate and graduate students.