ethanporcaro/eric-fulltext-meta huggingface dataset:
Opportunities for Efficiency and Innovation: A Primer on How to Cut College Costs. Working Paper 2011-02
Author: Fried, Vance H.
Date: 2011-06-24
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Undergraduate Study,Educational Finance,Paying for College,Costs,Colleges,Resource Allocation,Teacher Student Ratio,Educational Administration,Incentives,Change Strategies,Class Size,Enrollment,Budgeting,Research,Public Service,Teacher Salaries,Productivity,College Faculty,Faculty Workload,Online Courses

In this paper the author explores how colleges whose primary mission is undergraduate education can strategically allocate resources in a way that reduces costs and prioritizes teaching and learning. He starts from a provocative thought-experiment--what would it cost to educate undergraduates at a hypothetical college built from scratch?--and uses the exercise to identify areas that are ripe for cost savings. Rather than focusing only on the conspicuous, big-ticket items that tend to dominate debates about college costs, the author argues that the real levers for increasing efficiency include rethinking student-faculty ratios, eliminating under-enrolled programs, and trimming unnecessary administrative positions. This paper also outlines how policymakers can create incentives for undergraduate colleges to pursue reforms that will make them more cost-effective. (Contains 6 tables and 19 endnotes.)
Linking Costs and Postsecondary Degrees: Key Issues for Policymakers. Working Paper 2011-03
Author: Johnson, Nate
Date: 2011-07-08
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Higher Education,Universities,Private Colleges,Paying for College,Costs,Educational Finance,Budgets,Enrollment,Public Officials,Academic Degrees,Public Colleges

In this paper the author offers practical advice for decision-makers who are struggling to rein in college costs while improving productivity. He provides a step-by-step guide to different approaches for calculating costs, highlights the tremendous variability in cost across programs within institutions, and documents some of the &quot;hidden costs&quot; of higher education. Rather than cut budgets across the board, as many cash-strapped schools have done, the author argues that budget decisions should be grounded in clear and reliable data that prioritize performance and productivity. For policymakers interested in spending higher education dollars more strategically, the author offers five simple &quot;rules of the road&quot; that should inform efforts to link finance more tightly to institutional performance: (1) Not all certificates and degrees cost the same or produce the same benefits; (2) Private universities show where growth is (and isn't) possible without massive subsidies; (3) Seek economies of scale where appropriate; (4) Do not confuse enrollments with degrees; and (5) Past performance may not indicate future results. (Contains 5 tables, 1 figure and 30 endnotes.)
More than Meets the Eye: The Politics of For-Profits in Education. Private Enterprise in American Education. Special Report 2
Author: Kelly, Andrew P.
Date: 2011-07-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: Elementary Secondary Education,Higher Education,Educational Innovation,Proprietary Schools,Models,Politics of Education,Cost Effectiveness,Public Opinion,Public Policy

For decades, for-profit educational provision has been tolerated, often grudgingly. In the world of charter schooling, for-profit providers are lambasted and sometimes prohibited. In higher education, for-profit institutions have grown rapidly, enrolling millions of nontraditional students and earning enmity, suspicion, and now investigative and regulatory actions in Washington. When it comes to student lending, teacher quality, and school turnarounds, there is a profound preference for nonprofit or public alternatives. All of this is too familiar to be remarkable. The problem is that K-12 and higher education desperately need the innovative thinking and nimble adaptation that for-profits can provide in the presence of healthy markets and well-designed incentives. Alongside nonprofit and public providers, for-profits have a crucial role to play in meeting America's twenty-first-century educational challenges cost-effectively and at scale. This paper is designed to pivot away from the tendency to reflexively demonize or celebrate for-profits and instead understand what it takes for for-profits to promote quality and cost-effectiveness at scale. The author evaluates the political landscape surrounding for-profits in education--and why the traditional divides between Republicans and Democrats fail to capture both the public's and Washington's stance on the issue. Through voting data, public opinion polling, and politicians' own words, the author demonstrates that the politics of for-profit involvement in K-12 and higher education are more nuanced than they seem at first glance. The author writes, &quot;The traditional Left-Right ideological continuum fails to capture the ways policymakers and the public confront questions about for-profit involvement in education. Instead, government policy and public opinion are built on an underlying set of distinctions that we might miss if we focus only on the high-profile partisan battles that occupy the headlines.&quot; In particular, the author points out that the Democratic position on for-profit involvement in K-12 and higher education is far from monolithic and argues that both policymakers and the public are quite comfortable with for-profit companies providing &quot;peripheral&quot; or supplemental education services. The paper concludes with a new framework or thinking about the politics of for-profit education. (Contains 5 tables, 2 figures and 46 notes.
Beyond Good and Evil: Understanding the Role of For-Profits in Education through the Theories of Disruptive Innovation. Private Enterprise in American Education. Special Report 1
Author: Horn, Michael B.
Date: 2011-04-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: Higher Education,Proprietary Schools,School Role,Nontraditional Students,Free Enterprise System,Public Policy,Nonprofit Organizations,Innovation,Theories,Comparative Analysis,Cost Effectiveness,School Effectiveness

For decades, for-profit educational provision has been tolerated, often grudgingly. In the world of charter schooling, for-profit providers are lambasted and sometimes prohibited. In higher education, for-profit institutions have grown rapidly, enrolling millions of nontraditional students and earning enmity, suspicion, and now investigative and regulatory actions in Washington. When it comes to student lending, teacher quality, and school turnarounds, there is a profound preference for nonprofit or public alternatives. All of this is too familiar to be remarkable. In this paper, the author explains why policymakers and reformers who castigate for-profits or nonprofits as inherently bad or good are mistaken. It is not about whether for-profits are &quot;bad&quot; or &quot;good,&quot; he cautions, but about what for-profits are and are not given incentives to do regarding consumer satisfaction, embedded regulatory structures, and shareholder demands. As he argues, &quot;Government should not discriminate between for-profits and nonprofits as a matter of blanket policy. Instead, it should ask if the company with which it is contracting, for-profit or nonprofit, is delivering on what society is paying it to do, as determined by both the spirit and letter of the law. And policymakers more broadly should be asking if the law is asking these organizations to do the right thing.&quot; (Contains 3 figures and 20 notes.)
Something Has Got to Change: Rethinking Special Education. Working Paper 2011-01
Author: Levenson, Nathan
Date: 2011-00-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: Special Education,Disabilities,Educational Change,Student Needs,Special Needs Students,Costs,Educational Finance,Cost Effectiveness,School Districts,Administrator Responsibility,Educational Assessment

In this paper the author draws on his years of experience as a superintendent and special education consultant to offer a litany of field-tested practices for taming out-of-control special education spending while serving students better. He sketches ways for districts to do far better in four key areas. He explains how to squeeze costs and boost results by: (1) better integrating special education with general education classrooms; (2) smarter deployment of support staff; (3) the use of more sophisticated metrics to gauge effectiveness metrics; and (4) employing more strategic management structures. Such strategies, he argues, equip teachers and administrators to better meet student needs while also helping policymakers provide much-needed targeted support for cost-effective practices. As he notes, &quot;Districts must tackle the twin challenges of controlling special education costs and improving student achievement. In short, we are asking districts to do more with less.&quot; (Contains 7 figures and 18 endnotes.)
Disadvantaged Students: School Districts Have Used Title I Funds Primarily to Support Instruction. Report to Congressional Committees. GAO-11-595
Author: Scott, George A.
Date: 2011-07-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: Kindergarten,Elementary Secondary Education,Federal Legislation,Federal Aid,Educational Finance,School Districts,Educational Improvement,Low Income,Low Income Groups,Resource Allocation,Accountability,Academic Achievement,Grade 8,Disadvantaged

Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended, is the largest federal education funding source for kindergarten through grade 12. In fiscal year 2010, Congress appropriated $14.5 billion for Title I grants to school districts to improve educational programs in schools with high concentrations of students from low-income families. ESEA includes accountability requirements for schools and districts that focus primarily on measuring academic outcomes rather than prescribing exactly how Title I  funds are to be spent. ESEA, as amended, includes a mandate that requires the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) determine how selected districts expend Title I funds. In response, the GAO addressed (1) how selected school districts spent their Title I funds and (2) what federal mechanisms are in place to oversee how Title I funds are used and what is known about the extent of noncompliance with relevant requirements. To do this, GAO visited a nongeneralizable sample of 12 school districts in 4 states and analyzed their Title I expenditures for the 2008-2009 school year. GAO also reviewed federal and local audit findings for a wider range of states and districts. Districts were selected based on criteria in the mandate including variation in size, student demographics, location, and economic conditions. GAO is not making recommendations. Education provided technical comment on a draft of this report, which we incorporated as appropriate. Appended are: (1) Objectives, Scope and Methodology; (2) School District Profiles; and (3) GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments. (Contains 1 table, 7 figures and 56 footnotes.)
SCHEV Review of the Funding Model for Student Financial Assistance
Author: State Council of Higher Education for Virginia
Date: 2010-10-26
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: State Aid,Student Financial Aid,Educational Finance,Educational Research,Resource Allocation,College Administration,Community Colleges,Colleges,Models,Budgets,Student Costs,Comparative Analysis

The 2010 Acts of the Assembly, Chapter 874, directs the State Council of Higher Education for Virginia (SCHEV) to conduct a study on state financial aid. In support of this directive, SCHEV conducted a series of meetings with representatives from each public four-year college or university, Richard Bland College, and representatives from the Virginia Community College System. These meetings focused on the administration of state financial aid, especially the creation and use of the Cost of Attendance (COA) budget. SCHEV also contacted seven states to determine how their primary state need-based aid program is funded and awarded to students. These states are Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Minnesota, North Carolina, Oregon, and Washington. This paper presents a summary of SCHEV's findings.
Tuition and Fees at Virginia's State-Supported Colleges and Universities, 2010-11
Author: Zheng, Yan
Date: 2010-07-00
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: Undergraduate Students,Higher Education,Taxes,State Aid,Student Costs,Tuition,Fees,Educational Finance,Economic Climate,Budgets,Public Education,State Colleges

The Commonwealth of Virginia, like the rest of the nation, has endured the effects of an historical economic recession for the past three years. While Virginia is perhaps no longer in recession, the still fragile economy is a major cause for concern. Shrinking tax revenues and the need to balance the state's budget led the 2010 General Assembly to reduce state support for public higher education by more than $400 million or 27% by FY2012 when compared to the original FY2010 budgets. Higher education institutions are facing great pressure to increase tuition in an attempt to bolster the system from the erosion of state support and ensure the delivery of high quality instructional services expected of Virginia colleges and universities. This report focuses on tuition and fees for in-state undergraduates and provides a summary of: (1) board-approved tuition and fee increases for the 2010-11 academic year; (2) tuition and fee trends in Virginia over the past 25 years; (3) the cost-sharing relationship between the state and students; and (4) trends in tuition increases nationally. The appendices provide comparisons of changes in tuition and fees for student groups, including in-state undergraduate, out-of-state undergraduate, in-state graduate, out-of-state graduate, in-state first professional, and out-of-state first professional. Appended are: (1) Tuition Policy; (2) 2010-11 Full-Time, In-State, Undergraduate Student Charges; (3) 2009-11 Full-Time Undergraduate Mandatory Non-Educational and General Fees; (4) 2009-11 Full-Time Student Charges, by Student Residency and Program Level; and (5) Tuition and Fees in Selected States, by Institution Type. (Contains 10 charts.)
Reducing Youth Violence and Delinquency in Pennsylvania: PCCDs Research-Based Programs Initiative
Author: Chilenski, Sarah Meyer
Date: 2007-10-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Youth Problems,Substance Abuse,Violence,Delinquency,Public Health,Risk,Youth Programs,Community Programs,Crime Prevention,At Risk Persons,Case Studies,Bullying,Prevention,Mentors,Family Involvement,Family Programs,Family School Relationship,Nurses,Foster Care,Skill Development,Counseling Techniques,Family Counseling

Youth violence and delinquency are problems that continue to challenge many communities across the U.S. For over a decade, Pennsylvania has been a national leader in confronting youth problem behaviors in a progressive and proactive fashion, investing heavily in supporting local community prevention coalitions and the use of proven-effective models for preventing youth violence and aggression, delinquency and youth substance abuse. Since 1998, the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency (PCCD) has invested over $60 million in implementing more than 140 effective prevention programs in more than 100 Pennsylvania communities. Community priorities are guided by local data based on a public health model of reducing known risk factors associated with violence and delinquency and promoting positive youth development. This report details Pennsylvania's approach to effectively addressing juvenile crime. It presents case studies of model prevention programs being implemented throughout the Commonwealth through PCCD funding, and describes the positive outcomes being seen in these communities. Programs Funded Through the Research-based Programs Initiative: 1998-2007 are appended. (Contains 21 figures and 6 footnotes.)
Achievement Trends of Schools and Students in Arizona's Title I School Improvement Program. REL Technical Brief. REL 2011-No. 017
Author: Crane, Eric W.
Date: 2011-07-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: Disadvantaged Schools,Federal Aid,Federal Legislation,Educational Improvement,Improvement Programs,Federal Programs,Program Evaluation,Program Effectiveness,Accountability,Context Effect,Mathematics Achievement,Reading Achievement,Compensatory Education,Educational Change,Comparative Analysis,Educational Indicators,Pattern Recognition

This technical brief responds to an Arizona Department of Education request to study academic performance in schools receiving funding through the federal Title I compensatory education program, the section of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 governing resources for schools and districts serving disadvantaged populations. The brief describes for 2005/06-2008/09 the numbers and distribution of Arizona public schools and students across school levels (elementary, middle, high) for three school types: Title I Schools in Improvement (participating in the school improvement program, a public program to improve the academic performance of students in schools not meeting adequate yearly progress for at least two consecutive years); Title I Schools Not in Improvement; and non-Title I schools. It reports how Schools in Improvement are distributed across school improvement statuses, compares trends in reading and math proficiency for students attending each school type, and examines patterns of movement in and out of school improvement among Title I schools. Appended are: (1) Study methods; (2) Detailed school- and student-level data; (3) School-level reading and math proficiency trends, 2005/06-2008/09; and (4) Movement in and out of Title I and the school improvement program among all Arizona schools receiving Title I funding any year over 2005/06-2008/09. (Contains 2 boxes, 12 tables, 9 figures, and 5 notes.)
The Nation's Report Card [TM]: Geography 2010. National Assessment of Educational Progress at Grades 4, 8, and 12. NCES 2011-467
Author: National Center for Education Statistics (ED)
Date: 2011-07-00
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: Geography,National Competency Tests,Grades (Scholastic),Academic Achievement,Grade 4,Grade 8,Grade 12,Scores,Elementary School Students,Middle School Students,High School Students,Gender Differences,Comparative Analysis,Ethnic Groups,Racial Differences,Student Evaluation

Nationally representative samples of about 7,000 fourth-graders, 9,500 eighth-graders, and 10,000 twelfth-graders participated in the 2010 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in geography. At each grade, students responded to questions designed to measure their knowledge of geography in the context of space and place, environment and society, and spatial dynamics and connections. Comparing the results from the 2010 assessment to the results from previous assessments in 1994 and 2001 shows how students' knowledge and skills in geography have changed over time. Findings reveal that: (1) Students make progress in geography at grade 4 but not at grades 8 and 12; (2) Percentages of fourth- and eighth- graders at or above &quot;Basic&quot; are higher than in the first assessment year; (3) About one-quarter of students perform at or above the &quot;Proficient&quot; level in 2010; (4) Percentages of students at &quot;Advanced&quot; decrease from 1994 at grades 4 and 8; (5) White-Black score gaps narrow at grades 4 and 8; and (6) Male students score higher than female students at all three grades. Appendix tables are included. (Contains 28 figures and 21 tables.)
Effective Instruction for Adolescent Struggling Readers: A Practice Brief
Author: Boardman, Alison Gould
Date: 2008-00-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Reading Skills,Reading Difficulties,Adolescents,Reading Instruction,Reading Fluency,Vocabulary Development,Reading Comprehension,Reading Motivation,Teaching Methods,Word Study Skills,Phonological Awareness,Prior Learning,Visual Aids,Questioning Techniques

The purpose of this practice brief is to provide schools, districts, and states with background knowledge about best practices for older students who struggle to read. It focuses on the reading skills that adolescents need to more fully access content-area curricula and, in turn, secure a productive future. The authors define adolescent reading as occurring between fourth and 12th grades and as separate from early reading in kindergarten through third grades. [For related reports, see "Interventions for Adolescent Struggling Readers: A Meta-Analysis with Implications for Practice" (ED521837) and "Effective Instruction for Adolescent Struggling Readers: Professional Development Module. Second Edition. Facilitator's Guide" (ED521838).]
Interventions for Adolescent Struggling Readers: A Meta-Analysis with Implications for Practice
Author: Scammacca, Nancy
Date: 2007-00-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: Reading Comprehension,Reading Difficulties,Learning Disabilities,Adolescents,Meta Analysis,Theory Practice Relationship,Vocabulary,Achievement Gap,Reading Achievement,Synthesis,Technical Assistance,Educational Policy,Evidence,Federal Programs,Special Education,Instructional Effectiveness,Educational Assessment,Research Reports,Intervention,Reading Instruction,Reading Research

This meta-analysis offers decision-makers research-based guidance for intervening with adolescent struggling readers. The authors outline major implications for practice: (1) Adolescence is not too late to intervene. Interventions do benefit older students; (2) Older students with reading difficulties benefit from interventions focused at both the word and the text level; (3) Older students with reading difficulties benefit from improved knowledge of word meanings and concepts; (4) Word-study interventions are appropriate for older students struggling at the word level; (5) Teachers can provide interventions that are associated with positive effects; (6) Teaching comprehension strategies to older students with reading difficulties is beneficial; (7) Older readers' average gains in reading comprehension are somewhat smaller than those in other reading and reading-related areas studied; (8) Older students with learning disabilities (LD) benefit from reading intervention when it is appropriately focused; and (9) To learn more about instructional conditions that could close the reading gap for struggling readers, individuals will need studies that provide instruction over longer periods of time and assess outcomes with measures more like those schools use to monitor reading progress of all students. This report summarizes aspects of recent research on reading instruction for adolescent struggling readers. It both synthesizes research findings to determine the relative effectiveness of interventions for struggling older readers and outlines the implications of these findings for practice. Its purpose is to advance the knowledge of technical assistance providers working with state departments of education and local education agencies concerning reading-related issues for students with reading difficulties and learning disabilities (LD). While the authors' methods and general findings are described, they are presented in terms of their impact on practice and policy. Specific suggestions for implementing these and other research findings are provided in an accompanying practice brief (ED521836). This report is intended primarily for technical assistance providers at Regional Comprehensive Centers for their use in crafting evidence-based guidance for states and local educational agencies. (Contains 5 tables and 1 footnote and lists 14 resources.) [For related reports, see "Effective Instruction for Adolescent Struggling Readers: A Practice Brief" (ED521836) and "Effective Instruction for Adolescent Struggling Readers: Professional Development Module. Second Edition. Facilitator's Guide." (ED521838).]