ethanporcaro/eric-fulltext-meta huggingface dataset:
Review of "Incomplete: How Middle Class Schools Aren't Making the Grade". Think Tank Review
Author: Baker, Bruce D.
Date: 2011-09-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: Urban Schools,Middle Class,Classification,Educational Change,School Districts,Public Schools,Outcomes of Education,Organizations (Groups),Research,Policy Formation

"Incomplete: How Middle Class Schools Aren't Making the Grade" is a new report from Third Way, a Washington, D.C.-based policy think tank. The report aims to convince parents, taxpayers and policymakers that they should be as concerned about middle-class schools not making the grade as they are about the failures of the nation's large, poor, urban school districts. But, the report suffers from egregious methodological flaws invalidating nearly every bold conclusion drawn by its authors. First, the report classifies as middle class any school or district where the share of children qualifying for free or reduced-priced lunch falls between 25% and 75%. Seemingly unknown to the authors, this classification includes as middle class some of the poorest urban centers in the country, such as Detroit and Philadelphia. But, even setting aside the crude classification of middle class, none of the report's major conclusions are actually supported by the data tables provided. The report concludes, for instance, that middle-class schools perform much less well than the general public, parents and taxpayers believe they do. But, the tables throughout the report invariably show that the schools they classify as "middle class" fall precisely where one would expect them to--in the middle--between higher- and lower-income schools. (Contains 2 tables, 2 figures, and a combined list of 19 notes and references.)
National Drug Control Strategy, 2011
Author: Office of National Drug Control Policy
Date: 2011-00-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Public Policy,Drug Use,Drinking,Substance Abuse,Prevention,Early Intervention,Health Services,Crime,Delinquency,Drug Rehabilitation,Correctional Institutions,Public Health,Information Systems,International Cooperation,Marijuana

In May of 2010, President Obama released the Administration's inaugural "National Drug Control Strategy". Based on the premise that drug use and its consequences pose a threat not just to public safety, but also to public health, the 2010 "Strategy" represented the first comprehensive rebalancing of Federal drug control policy in the nearly 40 years since President Nixon declared illicit drugs "public enemy number one." This 2010 "Strategy" continues to serve as the Administration's blueprint to reduce drug use and its associated consequences in the United States. It describes specific actions that Federal departments and agencies are taking to achieve the Administration's two main drug control goals: curtailing illicit drug consumption in America and reducing the consequences of drug abuse that threaten our public health and safety. It also highlights the development and implementation of evidence-based prevention and intervention practices and policies supported by Federal partnerships with state, local, and tribal jurisdictions and other stakeholders. Appended are: (1) National Drug Control Strategy Goals to be Attained by 2015; and (2) List of Acronyms. (Contains 18 figures and 113 endnotes.) [For "2011 National Drug Control Strategy. Executive Summary," see ED524261.]
2011 National Drug Control Strategy. Executive Summary
Author: Office of National Drug Control Policy
Date: 2011-00-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Public Policy,Drug Use,Drinking,Substance Abuse,Prevention,Early Intervention,Health Services,Crime,Delinquency,Drug Rehabilitation,Correctional Institutions,Public Health,Information Systems,International Cooperation

In May of 2010, President Obama released the Administration's inaugural "National Drug Control Strategy", a comprehensive approach to combat the public health and safety consequences posed by drug use. Now, a year later, the Administration is releasing its update building upon that initial "Strategy". The "Strategy" establishes ambitious goals to reduce both drug use and drug-related consequences. This five-year plan aims to cut drug use among youth by 15 percent, drug-induced deaths and drug-related morbidity by 15 percent, and drugged driving by 10 percent. To achieve these goals, the "Strategy" focuses on seven core areas: (1) Strengthening efforts to prevent drug use in communities; (2) Seeking early intervention opportunities in health care; (3) Integrating treatment for substance use disorders into health care, and supporting recovery; (4) Breaking the cycle of drug use, crime, delinquency, and incarceration; (5) Disrupting domestic drug trafficking and production; (6) Strengthening international partnerships; and (7) Improving information systems to better analyze, assess, and locally address drug use and its consequences. [For the main report, "National Drug Control Strategy, 2011", see ED524260.]
Recovery Act Education Programs: Funding Retained Teachers, but Education Could More Consistently Communicate Stabilization Monitoring Issues. Report to Congress. GAO-11-804
Author: Scott, George A.
Date: 2011-09-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: Economic Climate,Elementary Secondary Education,Educational Finance,Educational Change,School Districts,Accountability,Federal State Relationship,Disabilities,Feedback (Response),Politics of Education,Teacher Persistence

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) provided $70.3 billion for three education programs--the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF); Title I, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (Title I); and Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Part B. One goal of the Recovery Act was to save and create jobs, and SFSF also requires states to report information expected to increase transparency and advance educational reform. This report responds to two ongoing US Government Accountability Office (GAO) mandates under the Recovery Act. It examines (1) how selected states and local recipients used the funds; (2) what plans the Department of Education (Education) and selected states have to assess the impact of the funds; (3) what approaches are being used to ensure accountability of the funds; and (4) how Education and states ensure the accuracy of recipient reported data. To conduct this review, GAO gathered information from 14 states and the District of Columbia, conducted a nationally representative survey of local educational agencies (LEA), interviewed Education officials, examined recipient reports, and reviewed relevant policy documents. GAO recommends that the Secretary of Education establish mechanisms to improve the consistency of communicating SFSF monitoring feedback to states. Education agreed with our recommendation. Appended are: (1) Objectives, Scope, and Methodology; (2) Drawdown Rates by Program; (3) Comments from the Department of Education; (4) Status of Prior Open Recommendations and Matters for Congressional Consideration; (5) GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments. (Contains 5 tables, 8 figures and 71 footnotes.)
An Untapped Resource for Increasing College Attainment: Estimating the Population of Potential First-Generation Students in Wisconsin. WISCAPE Policy Brief
Author: Lazenby, Sara
Date: 2011-05-19
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: First Generation College Students,Student Recruitment,Academic Persistence,College Attendance,Public Officials,Parent Background,Educational Attainment,Graduation Rate,Population Trends

Potential first-generation students make up a large segment of Wisconsin's teenage population. To increase the pool of educated workers in Wisconsin, policymakers must work to recruit, retain, and graduate these students. Estimates of the size of the first-generation  student population in the state are crucial for these efforts. This brief presents a first-of-its-  kind method for estimating the number of potential first-generation students in Wisconsin, discusses the primary characteristics of this population, and provides implications for policymakers and practitioners. (Contains 2 tables, 1 figure and 12 notes.)
Bouncebacks in Higher Education Funding: Patterns in Length of Time to Recovery following Cuts in State Appropriations. WISCAPE Policy Brief
Author: Doyle, William R.
Date: 2011-08-30
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: Educational Finance,Higher Education,State Aid,Financial Support,Budgeting,Retrenchment,Tuition,Governing Boards,Economic Change

State appropriations for higher education are highly cyclical, with downturns in funding during difficult financial times followed by increases in funding when state finances improve. This policy brief shares recent research about whether the duration of recoveries from cuts in appropriations for higher education has changed over time and which characteristics of states are associated with shorter or longer durations for recovery. The authors investigate national trends and provide detailed descriptions for five states: California, Florida, Illinois, New York, and Wisconsin. They find that the duration of recoveries has increased in each decade from 1979 to 2007 and that states with higher tuition and a centralized governing board are likely to face longer recovery times. The authors conclude with implications and recommendations for campus leaders and policymakers. (Contains 9 figures and 12 notes.)
American Labor in U.S. History Textbooks: How Labor's Story Is Distorted in High School History Textbooks
Author: Cole, Paul F.
Date: 2011-00-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: Labor,United States History,High Schools,Textbooks,History Instruction,Collective Bargaining,Work Environment,Social Discrimination,Human Dignity,Textbook Content

Imagine opening a high school U.S. history textbook and finding no mention of--or at most a passing sentence about--Valley Forge, the Missouri Compromise, or the League of Nations. Imagine not finding a word about Benjamin Franklin, Lewis and Clark, Sitting Bull, Andrew Carnegie, or Rosa Parks. Imagine if these key events and people just disappeared as if they'd never existed, or rated no more than a glancing phrase. That is what has happened in history textbooks when it comes to labor's part in the American story, and to the men and women who led the labor movement. In the high school history textbooks the children read, too often everyone finds that labor's role in American history--and labor's important accomplishments, which changed American life forever--are misrepresented, downplayed or ignored. That is a tragedy, because labor played (and continues to play) a key role in the development of American democracy and the American way of life. This report examines four high school textbooks published by some of the leading publishers in the country. Together, the books in this study represent a significant percentage of the purchasing market for high school history textbooks. Thus, their influence is enormous. The authors summarize their general observations, and are not a detailed point-by-point analysis of each textbook's presentation of workers' rights and organized labor issues throughout history. In each section, however, the authors highlight at least one key problem area. (Contains 1 figure and 154 footnotes.)
Post-School Outcomes Data Collection and Use: Questions State Directors of Special Education Should Ask
Author: Reder, Nancy
Date: 2006-11-00
Type: Guides - Non-Classroom
Subjects: Elementary Secondary Education,Educational Objectives,Outcomes of Education,Disabilities,Special Education,Data Collection,Evaluation Utilization,Data Analysis,State Officials,Educational Indicators,Educational Assessment,Formative Evaluation,Accessibility (for Disabled),Research Needs,Administrator Role,Administrator Responsibility,Data Interpretation,Administrator Guides

The purpose of this document is to give state directors of special education, especially those who are new in their positions, a guide to understanding their role and responsibilities with respect to the collection, analysis and reporting of post-school outcomes data for Indicator 14 of the Part B State Performance Plan (SPP). To assist state directors, the National Post-School Outcomes Center, a technical assistance center funded by the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), has developed this set of questions designed to help state directors understand the formative issues that will enable them to collect quality data and improve post-school outcomes for youth with disabilities. As you read through this document, it is important to understand the interrelationships between Indicator 14 and the other indicators that are designed to help states mark progress on improving educational outcomes for students with disabilities. Ultimately, everything that happens during the course of a student's elementary and secondary education will impact how well the student does once he or she leaves school. Thus, in order for state education agencies (SEAs) and local education agencies (LEAs) to show success in reaching their targets for Indicator 14, they will be achieving success with other Indicators in the SPP.
NASDSE Roundtable Discussion: Collecting and Using Post-School Outcome Data on Dropouts and Other Hard-to-Locate Former Students
Author: Reder, Nancy
Date: 2008-10-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Discussion,Dropouts,Disabilities,Special Education,Administrators,School Districts,Surveys

The National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE) organized and led a roundtable discussion of state special education directors (and, in a few cases, their staff members) on May 15, 2008. The subject was specifically selected because it had come to NASDSE's attention that many states were struggling with collecting data about students who, collectively, fall into the category of "dropouts." This group includes: students who have been or are incarcerated, those who have moved away without leaving forwarding permanent addresses, or do not have telephones or email addresses. The structure of the roundtable discussion gave state directors an opportunity to share ideas among themselves regarding challenges to reaching these students and strategies that appear to be working to reach this group of former students. A total of 25 states participated in the roundtable discussion. This document provides a summary of the discussion. Appended are: (1) list of discussion questions; and (2) list of participating states. (Contains 2 footnotes.)
The College Payoff: Education, Occupations, Lifetime Earnings
Author: Carnevale, Anthony P.
Date: 2011-00-00
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: Educational Attainment,Education Work Relationship,Economic Opportunities,High School Graduates,Data,Occupations,Age,Race,Ethnicity,Sex,Data Interpretation,Context Effect,Fiscal Capacity,Differences

A college degree pays off--but by just how much? In this report from the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce, the authors examine just what a college degree is worth--and what else besides a degree might influence an individual's potential earnings. This report examines lifetime earnings for all education levels and earnings by occupation, age, race/ethnicity, and gender. The data are clear: a college degree is key to economic opportunity, conferring substantially higher earnings on those with credentials than those without. A 2002 Census Bureau study estimated that in 1999, the average lifetime earnings of a Bachelor's degree holder was $2.7 million (2009 dollars), 75 percent more than that earned by high school graduates in 1999. Today, the authors find similar numbers--but since 1999, the premium on college education has grown to 84 percent. In other words, over a lifetime, a Bachelor's degree is worth $2.8 million on average. The authors present their findings in dollar totals over a career, which is defined as being a full-time, full-year worker from 25 to 64 years old. Lifetime Earnings by Educational Attainment and Occupation are appended. (Contains 11 tables, 6 figures and 5 footnotes.) [For "The College Payoff: Education, Occupations, Lifetime Earnings. Executive Summary," see ED524300.]
The College Payoff: Education, Occupations, Lifetime Earnings. Executive Summary
Author: Carnevale, Anthony P.
Date: 2011-00-00
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: Educational Attainment,Education Work Relationship,Economic Opportunities,Graphs,Tables (Data),Data Analysis,Data,Occupations,Age,Race,Ethnicity,Sex,Data Interpretation,Context Effect,Fiscal Capacity,Differences

Education and earnings interact in complex and often unexpected ways--but there are rules to the game. "The College Payoff," a new paper from the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce, uses in-depth data analysis to identify, illuminate and elucidate those rules. This executive summary provides a glimpse of the education and earnings game, and cracks open the rule book for examination. (Contains 17 figures.) [For the full report, "The College Payoff: Education, Occupations, Lifetime Earnings," see ED524299.]
The Undereducated American. Executive Summary
Author: Carnavale, Anthony P.
Date: 2011-00-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Human Capital,Postsecondary Education,Educational Attainment,Labor Supply,Labor Force Development,Educational Trends,Disadvantaged,Income,Achievement Gap

The United States has been underproducing college-going workers since 1980. Supply has failed to keep pace with growing demand, and as a result, income inequality has grown precipitously. From 1915 to 1980, supply grew in tandem with demand. But, starting in 1990, the share of college-educated young people in the workforce rose very slowly. If the nation continues to underproduce college-educated workers, the large and growing gap between the earnings of Americans of different educational attainment will grow even wider. This paper suggests that adding an additional 20 million postsecondary-educated workers over the course of the next 15 years will make the nation's level of educational attainment comparable with other developed nations, help meet the economy's need for efficiency, and reverse the growth of income inequality. [For the full report, &quot;The Undereducated American,&quot; see ED524302.]
The Undereducated American
Author: Carnevale, Anthony P.
Date: 2011-00-00
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: Education Work Relationship,Technological Advancement,Economic Development,Human Capital,Postsecondary Education,Educational Attainment,Wages,Supply and Demand,Labor Supply,Labor Force Development,Educational Trends,Disadvantaged,Income,Achievement Gap,College Graduates

The United States has been underproducing college-going workers since 1980. Supply has failed to keep pace with growing demand, and as a result, income inequality has grown precipitously. From 1915 to 1980, supply grew in tandem with demand. But, starting in 1990, the share of college-educated young people in the workforce rose very slowly. If the nation continues to underproduce college-educated workers, the large and growing gap between the earnings of Americans of different educational attainment will grow even wider. The authors suggest that adding an additional 20 million postsecondary-educated workers over the course of the next 15 years will make America's level of educational attainment comparable with other developed nations, help meet the economy's need for efficiency, and reverse the growth of income inequality. The authors lay out their argument in five sections. The first tracks the evolution of increasing educational attainment in this country and in other countries around the world. They give an overview of the data that demonstrate that other countries have accepted that economic growth has been tied to rising educational levels. The second section documents the change in the supply and demand of college-educated workers from 1915 to 2005. They assess and confirm the consensus economic interpretation of the rise of the Bachelor's degree to high school wage premium from 1980 to 2005 that suggests that there has been an undersupply of college graduates. The third section shows how this rising Bachelor's degree premium has led to a sharp, distressing rise in inequality and discusses the positive effects of increased postsecondary attainment on wages and inequality. The fourth section addresses the arguments that we have too many college graduates today. The final section details their calculations regarding how many additional college graduates are needed between now and 2025 to meet the rising demand for college-educated workers and to meet a target Bachelor's degree to high school wage ratio that will result in a more shared prosperity. Appended are: (1) Methodology; (2) Simulation to Create Additional 18 Million Bachelor's Degrees through 2025; and (3) Considering the Costs of College-Going. (Contains 11 figures and 21 footnotes.) [For &quot;The Undereducated American. Executive Summary,&quot; see ED524301.]
What Technical Assistance States Need to Collect Post-School Outcome Data for Youth with Disabilities: Summary of Technical Assistance Conference Calls Conducted by the National Post-School Outcomes Center and the National Association of State Directors of Special Education
Author: Reder, Nancy, Comp.
Date: 2005-11-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Disabilities,Technical Assistance,Special Education,Needs Assessment,Data Collection,Graduate Surveys,Outcomes of Education,Accountability,Teleconferencing,Action Research,Interest Inventories,Accessibility (for Disabled),Educational Policy,Educational Practices,State Agencies

The National Post-School Outcomes Center (NPSO), in conjunction the National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE) and the Regional Resource Centers (RRCs), held a series of conference calls with states to assess their needs for technical assistance on the new requirements for collecting and reporting post-school outcome data for students with disabilities as required by the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP). The major concerns expressed by the states had to do with data collection, including sampling techniques that produce reliable and valid post-school outcome data. States were also concerned about the costs involved, the burden placed on local education agencies and a need to learn about practices currently in place that are producing good data. Additionally, states expressed concern that key terms, such as "rigorous targets" and "meaningful employment" have not been defined by OSEP. This paper summarizes the issues raised by the states on the conference calls.