ethanporcaro/eric-fulltext-meta huggingface dataset:
Psychological Evaluation of Children Who Are Deaf-Blind: An Overview with Recommendations for Practice. Revised
Author: Mar, Harvey
Date: 2010-06-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Deaf Blind,Children,Psychological Evaluation,Evaluation Methods,Infants,Adults,Evaluation,Testing,Psychometrics,Intelligence Tests,Adaptive Testing,Developmental Stages,Daily Living Skills,Research Methodology,Research Skills,Functional Behavioral Assessment,Psychologists,Communication Strategies,Parent Role,Student Evaluation,Quality Control

This fact sheet provides answers to frequently asked questions about psychological evaluations for infants, children and adults who are deaf-blind, we hope to clarify the evaluation process and the active roles that may be taken by everyone who is involved--family members, professionals, educators, and the student. Finally, by discussing quality indicators and desired outcomes, we present ways to view and use the evaluation process so it will benefit the student to the greatest degree possible.
Definition of Intervener Services and Interveners in Educational Settings. Technical Report
Author: National Consortium on Deaf-Blindness (NCDB)
Date: 2013-07-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Intervention,Deaf Blind,Teamwork,Standards,Access to Education,Communication Skills,Interpersonal Relationship,Well Being,Paraprofessional School Personnel,Federal Legislation,Educational Legislation,Job Skills,Educational Attainment,Role,Special Education

This technical report synthesizes the process and information used by National Consortium on Deaf-Blindness (NCDB) in the development of a consistently applied definition of intervener services. It addresses challenges and questions, provides comparisons between interveners and paraprofessionals, and offers definitions, roles and concepts used by a number of states across the country. This document has been developed to inform thinking in response to a key implementation strategy in &quot;Recommendations for Improving Intervener Services&quot; (NCDB, 2012a, p. 6) formulated by NCDB for the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP). Two appendices present: (1) Summary of Intervener Definitions, Roles, and Key Concepts; and (2) Summary of NCDB Definition of Intervener Services and Interveners and in Educational Settings. A list of references and resources is included.
The 2008 National Child Count of Children and Youth Who Are Deaf-Blind
Author: National Consortium on Deaf-Blindness (NCDB)
Date: 2009-10-00
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: Deaf Blind,Children,Databases,Agency Cooperation,Data Collection,Technical Assistance,Needs Assessment,Family Needs,Early Intervention,Young Children,Access to Education,Student Needs,Federal Legislation,Educational Legislation,Age Differences,Geographic Location,Racial Differences,Ethnicity,Gender Differences,Visual Impairments,Classification,Hearing Impairments,Neurological Impairments,Etiology,Comorbidity,Disabilities,Educational Environment,Educational Methods,Standardized Tests,State Standards,Student Evaluation,Eligibility,Special Education,Inclusion,Place of Residence,Assistive Technology

The &quot;National Child Count of Children and Youth who are Deaf-Blind&quot; is the first and longest running registry and knowledge base of children who are deaf-blind in the world. It represents a 25 year collaborative effort between the National Consortium on Deaf-Blindness (NCDB), its predecessors and each state/multi-state deaf-blind project throughout the country, as well as those projects funded in the Pacific Trust territories--the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico. It has been collaboratively designed and implemented as the common vehicle to meet federal grant requirements for both the state/multistate and national technical assistance projects and serves as a common data collection and reporting mechanism for use across the country. Consistent with the priorities under which NCDB, its predecessors, and the state/multi-state projects are funded, this national child count is used to identify national and state technical assistance needs for children and youth who are deaf-blind, their families, and the service providers and systems which serve them. This is the first year in which the number of children/youth for which &quot;Further Testing Needed&quot; category has been analyzed for multiple years. The number of children/youth for which further vision and/or hearing testing is needed has decreased from 2,873 in 2007 to 772 in 2008. This 2008 report provides the opportunity for early identification, intervention and the provision of instructional services aimed at the unique needs of young children and students who are deaf-blind and is a critical component that cannot be lost. [For the 2007 Deaf-Blind Child Count, see ED545208.]
Oregon University System Fact Book 2012
Author: Oregon University System (OUS)
Date: 2013-01-00
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: State Universities,State Boards of Education,College Administration,Administrative Organization,Enrollment,Academic Degrees,Tuition,Graduation Rate,Educational Finance,Student Financial Aid,College Faculty,Budgets,Educational Facilities,Undergraduate Students,Graduate Students,Foreign Students,Student Characteristics,Distance Education,Teacher Salaries,Teacher Characteristics,State Aid,Transfer Rates (College),Performance

This compendium of narrative and statistical information is an overview of the Oregon University System (OUS) and is produced every two years. The introduction includes a mission and vision statement, OUS Governance Change Move, a listing of OUS campuses and centers, a roster of the members of the State Board of Higher Education, and Access and Opportunities. Separate chapters discuss student enrollment, headcounts, demographics, and graduation rates; performance and benchmarks; degrees awarded; tuition and financial aid; faculty; national comparisons, and budget and facilities. The book concludes with a glossary of relevant terms.
Oregon University System Fact Book 2010
Author: Oregon University System (OUS)
Date: 2011-01-00
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: State Universities,State Boards of Education,Enrollment,Academic Degrees,Tuition,Graduation Rate,Educational Finance,Student Financial Aid,College Faculty,Budgets,Educational Facilities,Undergraduate Students,Graduate Students,Foreign Students,Student Characteristics,Distance Education,Teacher Salaries,Teacher Characteristics,State Aid,Transfer Rates (College),Access to Education,College Administration,Administrative Organization,Performance

This compendium of narrative and statistical information is an overview of the Oregon University System (OUS) and is produced every two years. The introduction includes a mission and vision statement, OUS Governance Change Proposal, a listing of OUS campuses and centers, a roster of the members of the State Board of Higher Education, and Access and Opportunities. Separate chapters discuss student enrollment, headcounts, demographics, and graduation rates; performance and benchmarks; degrees awarded; tuition and financial aid; faculty; national comparisons, and budget and facilities. The book concludes with a glossary of relevant terms.
Fostering a Future of Inclusion: A Conversation with the Board
Author: Oregon University System (OUS)
Date: 2006-04-00
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: State Boards of Education,School Community Relationship,Elementary Secondary Education,Higher Education,Postsecondary Education,Academic Achievement,Inclusion,Educational Needs,Statistical Data,Enrollment,Ethnic Groups,College Freshmen,Sex,Academic Degrees,Faculty,Trend Analysis

The Oregon University System (OUS) continues to work diligently to find creative, resourceful, and effective ways to fulfill its mission of public higher education. As the Oregon State Board of Higher Education engages in a long-range planning process, there are opportunities to incorporate considerations of Oregon's increasingly varied population into the discussions and actions. In recent years, the Board has heard status reports on the progress within OUS toward more diverse representation in all segments of the system and, beyond the issues of representation, efforts to enhance the inclusion and engagement of all populations. Increasingly, broad concepts of diversity in the populations that they serve--including race/ethnicity, national origin, multiracial identity, gender, socioeconomic status, geographic diversity (i.e., rural, urban, suburban, and locations beyond Oregon), language, disability, and age, among others--continue to emerge. In support of the Board's developing strategic framework, the purpose of this document is to stimulate discussion concerning inclusive aspects associated with Oregon's integrated educational system. The following are appended: (1) OUS System Total Enrollment by Racial/Ethnic Group: Ten Year Trend (1995-2005); (2) OUS System Enrollment of First Time Freshmen by Racial/Ethnic Group: Ten Year Trend (1995-2005); (3) OUS Degrees Awarded by All Levels and Racial/Ethnic Group: Ten Year Trend (1995-2005); (4) OUS System Total Enrollment by Gender: Ten Year Trend (1995-2005); (5) OUS Degrees Awarded by Gender: Ten Year Trend (1995-2005); (6) OUS Full Time Ranked Instructional Faculty by Racial/Ethnic Group: Ten Year Trend (1995-2005); (7) OUS Full Time Ranked Instructional Faculty by Gender: Ten Year Trend (1995-2005); (8) OUS Faculty and Staff by Racial/Ethnic Group: Five Year History (2001-02 to 2005-06); and (9) OUS Faculty and Staff by Gender: Five Year History (2001-02 to 2005-06).
Oregon University System Fact Book 2008
Author: Oregon University System (OUS)
Date: 2009-01-00
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: State Universities,State Boards of Education,College Administration,Administrative Organization,Access to Education,Enrollment,Academic Degrees,Tuition,Graduation Rate,Educational Finance,Student Financial Aid,College Faculty,Budgets,Educational Facilities,Undergraduate Students,Graduate Students,Foreign Students,Student Characteristics,Distance Education,Teacher Salaries,Teacher Characteristics,State Aid,Transfer Rates (College),Partnerships in Education,Performance

This compendium of narrative and statistical information is an overview of the Oregon University System (OUS) and is produced every two years. The introduction includes a mission and vision statement, strategic priorities, a listing of OUS campuses and centers, a roster of the members of the State Board of Higher Education, OUS degree partnership programs, and Access and Opportunities. Separate chapters discuss student enrollment, headcounts, demographics, and graduation rates; performance and benchmarks; degrees awarded; tuition and financial aid; faculty; national comparisons, and budget and facilities. The book concludes with a glossary of relevant terms.
Oregon University System Fact Book 2013
Author: Oregon University System (OUS)
Date: 2014-01-00
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: State Universities,State Boards of Education,College Administration,Administrative Organization,Access to Education,Enrollment,Academic Degrees,Tuition,Graduation Rate,Educational Finance,Student Financial Aid,College Faculty,Budgets,Educational Facilities,Undergraduate Students,Graduate Students,Foreign Students,Student Characteristics,Distance Education,Teacher Salaries,Teacher Characteristics,State Aid,Transfer Rates (College),Performance

This compendium of narrative and statistical information is an overview of the Oregon University System (OUS) and is the last Fact Book published under the auspices of the Oregon University System. The introduction includes a mission statement, a listing of OUS campuses and centers, a roster of the members of the State Board of Higher Education, and Access and Opportunities. Separate chapters discuss student enrollment, headcounts, demographics, and graduation rates; performance and benchmarks; degrees awarded; tuition and financial aid; faculty; national comparisons, and budget and facilities. The book concludes with a glossary of relevant terms. [For the 2012 Fact Book, see ED545217.]
Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2013. NCES 2014-042/NCJ 243299
Author: Robers, Simone
Date: 2014-06-00
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: Crime,School Safety,Violence,Death,Victims of Crime,Weapons,Fear,Discipline,School Security,Incidence,Juvenile Gangs,Drug Use,Bullying,Drinking,Marijuana,Injuries,Discipline Problems,Student Attitudes,Teacher Attitudes,Public Schools,Private Schools,Colleges,Tables (Data),Statistical Data,National Surveys,School Surveys,Institutional Characteristics,Student Characteristics

&quot;Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2013&quot; provides the most recent national indicators on school crime and safety. The information presented in this report is intended to serve as a reference for policymakers and practitioners so that they can develop effective programs and policies aimed at violence and school crime prevention. Accurate information about the nature, extent, and scope of the problem being addressed is essential for developing effective programs and policies. This is the sixteenth edition of Indicators of School Crime and Safety, a joint publication of the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) and the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). This report provides detailed statistics to inform the nation about current aspects of crime and safety in schools. The 2013 edition of Indicators of School Crime and Safety includes the most recent available data, compiled from a number of statistical data sources supported by the federal government. Such sources include results from the School-Associated Violent Deaths Study, sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education, the Department of Justice, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); the National Crime Victimization Survey and School Crime Supplement to the survey, sponsored by the BJS and NCES, respectively; the Youth Risk Behavior Survey, sponsored by the CDC; the Schools and Staffing Survey and School Survey on Crime and Safety, both sponsored by NCES, and the Campus Safety and Security Survey, sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education. Appended are: (1) Technical Notes; and (2) Glossary of Terms. [For the previous report: &quot;Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2012. NCES 2013-036/NCJ 241446&quot; see ED543705.]
Going Public: Writing about Research in Everyday Language. REL 2014-051
Author: Dynarski, Mark
Date: 2014-06-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Research Reports,Concept Formation,Information Dissemination,Language Usage,Research Design,Measurement,Data Analysis,Communication Strategies,Glossaries,Definitions,Writing Strategies,Misconceptions,Vocabulary

Communicating complex concepts to practitioners, policymakers, and other nontechnical readers is a challenge that all policy researchers face. Research in education uses many concepts from methodology and statistics. If researchers want to communicate their findings to an audience of other researchers, they can safely assume that their audience is familiar with these concepts. Research terminology, or &quot;jargon,&quot; is efficient to use because it communicates concepts quickly. However, if the objective is to communicate findings to an audience of practitioners, policymakers or interested readers who are not researchers, researchers should not assume that their audience is familiar with research concepts. For this audience, communicating with research jargon is inefficient. To various degrees, depending on backgrounds and training, readers will have to decipher the jargon and guess at its meaning. They may not decipher it correctly, or they may get the meaning wrong, or they may simply stop reading. The concepts in this brief are from the three main areas of an empirical research report: &quot;study design,&quot; &quot;measurement,&quot; and &quot;data analysis.&quot; Not all concepts in a study fit neatly into those three areas, but many do. Some concepts also belong both in design and in analysis because the design phase of many studies includes the consideration of methods for analyzing the data. The focus here is on how to explain complex concepts for readers who are not expected to know what they are. This brief provides guidelines for communicating with these audiences. A glossary of common concepts is included. The intent of the glossary is to illuminate how complex concepts can be made simpler. The concepts are grouped into &quot;design,&quot; &quot;measurement,&quot; and &quot;analysis.&quot; The glossary shows how a concept might be used as jargon, explains what the concept is, and shows how the concept might be written in simpler language. The examples are likely to be found in contemporary education evaluations.
Using Evidence-Based Decision Trees Instead of Formulas to Identify At-Risk Readers. REL 2014-036
Author: Koon, Sharon
Date: 2014-06-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: At Risk Students,Reading Difficulties,Identification,Reading Comprehension,Classification,Regression (Statistics),Models,Nonparametric Statistics,Comparative Analysis,Elementary School Students,Grade 1,Grade 2,Public Schools,Accuracy,Prediction

This study examines whether the classification and regression tree (CART) model improves the early identification of students at risk for reading comprehension difficulties compared with the more difficult to interpret logistic regression model. CART is a type of predictive modeling that relies on nonparametric techniques. It presents results in an easy-to-interpret &quot;tree&quot; format, enabling parents, teachers, principals, and school district leaders to better understand how a student is predicted to be at risk. Using data from a sample of Florida public school students in grades 1 and 2 in 2012/13, the study found that the CART model predicted poor performance on the reading comprehension subtest of the Stanford Achievement Test as accurately as logistic regression while using fewer or the same number of variables. This research is motivated by state education leaders' interest in maintaining high classification accuracy while simultaneously improving practitioner understanding of the rules used to identify students as at-risk or not at-risk readers. An appendix provides detailed information on the study's data sources and methodology.
The English Language Learner Program Survey for Principals. REL 2014-027
Author: Grady, Matthew W.
Date: 2014-06-00
Type: Tests/Questionnaires
Subjects: English Language Learners,Surveys,Principals,School Policy,Educational Practices,Professional Development,State Standards,Guidelines,Administrator Attitudes,Media Adaptation

REL Northeast &amp; Islands at Education Development Center, in partnership with the English Language Learners Alliance, has developed a new survey tool--The English Language Learner Program Survey for Principals--to help state education departments collect consistent data on the education of English language learner students. Designed for school principals, the survey gathers information on school-level policies and practices for educating English language learner students, the types of professional development related to educating these students that principals have received and would like to receive, principals' familiarity with state guidelines and standards for educating these students, and principals' beliefs about educating these students. This report describes the survey in greater detail, looking at how to use it and how it was developed. It also includes the English Language Learner Program Survey for Principals developed for the Rhode Island Department of Education. Two appendices include: (1) Related Literature; and (2) Developing the Survey. [This report was written in collaboration with the English Language Learner Alliance.]
WWC Review of the Report &quot;Incentives, Selection, and Teacher Performance: Evidence from IMPACT.&quot; What Works Clearinghouse Single Study Review
Author: What Works Clearinghouse (ED)
Date: 2014-07-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: Program Effectiveness,Teacher Evaluation,Public Schools,Teacher Persistence,Teacher Competencies,Performance Based Assessment,Observation,Academic Achievement,Teacher Influence,Professional Identity,Teacher Behavior,Scores,Teacher Effectiveness,Correlation,Teacher Characteristics,Regression (Statistics),Scoring Rubrics,Teacher Salaries

The 2013 study, &quot;Incentives, Selection, and Teacher Performance: Evidence from IMPACT&quot; examined the effects of &quot;IMPACT,&quot; a teacher evaluation system used in the District of Columbia Public Schools, on teacher retention and performance. &quot;IMPACT&quot; assigns each teacher a single performance score based on classroom observations, student achievement, core professionalism, and their contributions to the school. Based on these performance scores, teachers are assigned one of four ratings, Highly Effective, Effective, Minimally Effective, or Ineffective. The information needed to determine attrition and baseline equivalence was not provided in the study. Consequently, the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) could not assess whether changes in teacher retention and performance were related to differences in the teacher characteristics at baseline. Therefore, the research described in this report does not meet WWC regression discontinuity design standards. A glossary of terms is also included. [The following study is the focus of this review: Dee, T., &amp; Wyckoff, J. (2013). &quot;Incentives, selection, and teacher performance: Evidence from IMPACT&quot; (NBER Working Paper 19529). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org (ED544547).]
Policy Barriers to School Improvement: What's Real and What's Imagined?
Author: Miller, Lawrence J.
Date: 2014-06-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Educational Policy,Educational Improvement,Barriers,Instructional Innovation,Resource Allocation,Teacher Effectiveness,Principals,Institutional Autonomy,Administrator Attitudes,Interviews

Some of the most promising reforms are happening where school leaders are thinking differently about how to get the strongest student outcomes from the limited resources available. But even principals who use their autonomy to aggressively reallocate resources say that persistent district, state, and federal barriers prohibit them from doing more. What are these barriers? What do they block principals from doing? Is there a way around them? CRPE researchers probed these questions with principals in three states (NH, CT, MD). These principals cited numerous district, state, and federal barriers standing in the way of school improvement. The barriers, 128 in all, fell into three categories: 1) barriers to instructional innovations, 2) barriers to allocating resources differently, and 3) barriers to improving teacher quality. Upon investigation, researchers found that principals have far more authority than they think. Only 31% of the barriers cited were &quot;real&quot;--immovable statutes, policies, or managerial directives that bring the threat of real consequences if broken. The report recommends educating principals on the authority they already possess, to help them find workarounds to onerous rules. The report also outlines a number of specific state and district policy changes to grant schools the autonomy they need to improve student outcomes. The following are appended (1) Data &amp; Analytical Methods; and (2) Labor Agreement Analysis.