ethanporcaro/eric-fulltext-meta huggingface dataset:
Oregon Cohort Graduation Rate: Policy and Technical Manual. 2015-16 Graduation Rates -- Based on Students First Entering High School during the 2011-12 and 2012-13 School Years
Author: Oregon Department of Education
Date: 2016-00-00
Type: Tests/Questionnaires
Subjects: Graduation Rate,High School Students,Cohort Analysis,Longitudinal Studies,High Schools,School Districts,Accountability,Outcomes of Education,Group Membership,Data Collection,Check Lists,Computation

High School graduation rates are key indicators of accountability for high schools and school districts in Oregon. Beginning with the 2008-09 school year, the Oregon Department of Education (ODE) implemented the cohort method of calculating graduation rates. The cohort method identifies the year the student entered high school for the first time (known as the high school entry year, or cohort year) and uses longitudinal student data to determine the student's outcome after four years. An extended rate, allowing one additional year for completion, is also tracked and reported as the 5-year Cohort Graduation Rates. These reports include other outcome categories for students in the cohort, in addition to graduates, and are disaggregated by student groups such as race/ethnicity and gender. Under Oregon's Consolidated State Application Accountability Workbook, high school graduation rate targets were set for each year of accountability. Due to the additional time needed to calculate accurate Cohort Graduation Rates, the 2015-16 rates will be used as part of the 2016-17 Accountability Year determinations. This manual provides information on: (1) Changes for the 2015-16 calculation; (2) Cohort calculation; (3) Assigning a cohort year; (4) Identifying students in the state cohort; (5) Determining the final outcome; (6) Determining the Accountable district and school; (7) Determining student group membership; and (8) Appealing cohort graduation rates. Definitions, data sources, resources, and suggested validation checklist are also included. [This document was produced by the Oregon Department of Education Office of Assessment and Accountability.]
The Virginia Plan for Higher Education: Annual Report for 2018
Author: State Council of Higher Education for Virginia
Date: 2019-01-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Higher Education,Educational Attainment,Access to Education,Academic Achievement,Paying for College,State Aid,Investment,Education Work Relationship,Educational Planning,Outcomes of Education,Graduation Rate,Research,Tuition,Alignment (Education),Sustainability,Educational Quality,Economic Development,Communication (Thought Transfer),Educational Indicators

Virginia faces a future in which higher education will play an increasingly important role. Virginians will need deeper and broader knowledge and skills to be engaged, productive participants in our evolving Commonwealth and its economy. At the same time, the demographics of the emerging generation are changing, as an increasing share of Virginia's youth will come from populations that historically are underrepresented in both higher education and the highly educated sectors of Virginia's workforce. These changes transpire at a time when the cost of attending college has increased beyond the capacity of many Virginians. In 2014, the State Council of Higher Education for Virginia (SCHEV) developed The Virginia Plan for Higher Education with the objective to place the Commonwealth as the best-educated state by 2030. It is designed to identify trends that the Commonwealth must address if it is to prosper and succeed. It serves as a vision for Virginia's future through a common framework. This framework is built on the premise that all partners in higher education must work together to help Virginia, its citizens and its regions. The General Assembly endorsed the plan by passing joint resolutions in 2015 and requested an annual report. The following report includes findings, recommendations and updates on initiatives, measures and related indicators from 2018. [For the report from the previous year, &quot;The Virginia Plan for Higher Education: Annual Report for 2017 to the General Assembly of Virginia,&quot; see ED590236.]
State K-12 Broadband Leadership 2019: Driving Connectivity, Access and Student Success
Author: Fox, Christine
Date: 2019-04-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Access to Computers,Internet,Elementary Secondary Education,Leadership,State Action,Federal Aid,State Aid,Administrative Policy

The State Educational Technology Directors Association (SETDA) and its state member leaders play a pivotal role in driving high-speed broadband access to all students to best prepare them for college and careers. Complementing the 2016 &quot;State K-12 Broadband Leadership: Driving Connectivity and Access&quot; (see ED569341), this publication highlights the importance of state leadership and the various ways states strive to support districts and schools. Students deserve these equitable opportunities both on and off campus. States demonstrate leadership through legislation, initiatives, partnerships, statewide broadband networks, regional networks, and/or statewide purchasing consortia to facilitate reliable, cost-effective internet access for districts. States are also developing strategies to help ensure all students have adequate internet access both on and off campus, whether it is publicizing affordable home internet options; the availability of free internet at community locations; or the ability to provide Wi-Fi on school buses. With state leadership to ensure connectivity and access, districts and schools can achieve their goals for digital learning for all students. No one state has the same policies or practices, yet all states are providing leadership. [Additional funding for this report was provided by Parana River Group (PRG).]
2018 Ohio Remediation Report: For Fall 2017 Enrolling College Students (Spring 2017 High School Graduates)
Author: Ohio Department of Education
Date: 2018-12-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: High School Graduates,In State Students,Remedial Instruction,College Freshmen,Access to Education,College Readiness,Adult Students,Public Colleges,Community Colleges,Enrollment

In fulfillment of Ohio Revised Code section 3333.041 (A) (1), the Chancellor of the Ohio Department of Higher Education (ODHE) has published a listing by school district of the number of 2017 high school graduates who attended a state institution of higher education in the 2017-2018 academic year. The listing provides the percentage of each district's graduates who were required to enroll in a non-credit-bearing remedial course in English or mathematics prior to enrolling in credit-bearing courses generally required for first-year students. In fulfillment of Ohio Revised Code section 3345.061 (H), the Chancellor of the Department of Higher Education and the Superintendent of Public Instruction herein submit the 2018 Ohio Remediation Report, based on data from the high school graduating class of 2017. The report provides an overview of Ohio's Remediation-Free Guarantee, a review of the data, and recommendations for future strategies to reduce the need for remediation. [To view the previous report, &quot;2017 Ohio Remediation Report: For 2016 High School Graduates Enrolling as First-Time Public College Students in 2016-2017,&quot; see ED590566.]
Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation Annual Report, 2018
Author: Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation
Date: 2019-00-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Educational Finance,Educational Change,Higher Education,Income,Private Financial Support,Government Role,Philanthropic Foundations,Costs,Partnerships in Education,Fund Raising,Donors,Teacher Competencies,Student Centered Learning,Classroom Environment,Instructional Design,Teacher Role,Teacher Leadership,Expenditures,Fellowships,Teacher Education

In the Woodrow Wilson Foundation's 2018 fiscal year (July 1, 2017-June 30, 2018), the Foundation sustained its longstanding emphasis on preparing leaders and institutions for critical national challenges, with a renewed focus on excellence, opportunity, and equity in education. Once again, the Foundation reports the creation of new programs and strategies, good progress in continuing programs, and sound operating outcomes across the board. This year's report includes a retrospective/prospective commentary from WW President Arthur E. Levine who will retire this summer after 13 years leading the Foundation. Also included are a statement of activities, highlights of the Foundation's work and Fellows' accomplishments, as well as a donor list reflecting gifts received between July 1, 2017 and June 30, 2018. [For the 2017 report, see ED589908.]
The Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation Report, 2014-2015
Author: Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation
Date: 2016-00-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Educational Finance,Credits,Educational Attainment,Measurement Techniques,Secondary Education,College Credits,Educational Change,Higher Education,Educational Technology,Technology Uses in Education,Fellowships,Income,Private Financial Support,Government Role,Philanthropic Foundations,Investment,Costs,Partnerships in Education,Fund Raising,Donors,Expenditures

The Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation's 2014-2015 Foundation Report includes audited financials for Fiscal Year (FY) 2014, audited financials for FY 2015, donor lists, and updates on the organization's work during those two years, including &quot;Woodrow Wilson Perspectives: The End of the Carnegie Unit&quot; (Arthur Levine) and &quot;Letter of Transmittal&quot; (Stephanie J. Hull).
Are Ratings from Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement Systems Valid Measures of Program Quality? A Synthesis of Validation Studies from Race to the Top - Early Learning Challenge States. NCEE 2019-4001
Author: Fox, Lindsay
Date: 2019-04-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: Educational Legislation,Federal Aid,Federal Legislation,Federal Programs,Program Validation,Outcome Measures,Achievement Rating,Early Childhood Education,Incentive Grants,Educational Quality,Educational Assessment,State Policy,Child Development,Child Care Centers,Evaluation Methods

The Race to the Top - Early Learning Challenge (RTT-ELC) grants program, sponsored by the U.S. Departments of Education and Health and Human Services, aimed to improve children's access to high quality early care and education. RTT-ELC awarded more than $1 billion over three rounds of grants to help states develop and implement systems that rate early learning and development programs on quality and help them improve. These systems are known as tiered quality rating and improvement systems (TQRIS). To strengthen the quality of early learning and development programs, TQRIS rate programs on quality standards and publicize the ratings of individual programs. States can use these ratings to identify low quality programs that need to improve, and parents can use the ratings to choose high quality programs for their children. However, the usefulness of the ratings for these purposes depends on how accurately they measure programs' quality, that is, their validity. To inform states' continued development of TQRIS and future validation studies, this report synthesizes findings from validation studies conducted by nine states that received RTT-ELC grants. It also describes the challenges that researchers faced when conducting these studies. [Additional contributions to this report were made by Michael Ponza, Kimberly Boller, Lisa Dragoset, Gretchen Kirby, Hanzhi Zhou, Amanda Lee, Malik Mubeen, John Kennedy, Cindy Castro, and Sharon Clark. For the related reports &quot;Moving on Up? Program Quality Ratings under Race to the Top - Early Learning Challenge. Evaluation Brief. NCEE 2019-4000,&quot; see ED594514; &quot;Quality Ratings and System Characteristics: Patterns in the Round 1 Race to the Top - Early Learning Challenge States. Evaluation Brief. NCEE 2019-4004,&quot; see ED594512; and &quot;Implementation of Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement Systems in States That Received Race to the Top - Early Learning Challenge Grants. Study Highlights,&quot; see ED594516.]
Moving on Up? Program Quality Ratings under Race to the Top - Early Learning Challenge. Evaluation Brief. NCEE 2019-4000
Author: Kirby, Gretchen
Date: 2019-04-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: Educational Legislation,Federal Aid,Federal Legislation,Federal Programs,Program Evaluation,Incentive Grants,Achievement Rating,Preschool Education,Child Care Centers,State Programs,Low Income Students,Educational Assessment,Alternative Assessment,Educational Policy,State Policy,Educational Quality,Educational Trends

The Race to the Top - Early Learning Challenge (RTT-ELC) grants program, sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, aimed to improve children's access to high quality early learning and development programs. RTT-ELC awarded $520 million in the first of three rounds of grants to help states develop and implement systems that rate early learning and development programs on quality and help them improve. These systems are known as tiered quality rating and improvement systems (TQRIS). TQRIS rate programs based on state-defined quality standards. A key objective for RTT-ELC was to increase the number of early learning and development programs in the top rating levels of the TQRIS, and to increase the number of children with high needs, such as those from low-income households, enrolled in these programs. This brief examines states' progress on this objective by describing patterns of TQRIS participation and ratings for the nine Round 1 states during the grant period (2012 to 2016). The brief presents patterns by state and for four types of programs: (1) state-funded prekindergarten (pre-K) programs; (2) Head Start programs; (3) licensed centers that received child care subsidies; and (4) licensed centers that did not receive subsidies. Key findings, based on administrative TQRIS data from the nine states, include: (1) TQRIS participation in all states and among all types of programs increased from 2012 to 2016; (2) Patterns in the percentage of programs in the top two rating levels differed substantially by state from 2012 to 2016; (3) Most states increased the percentage of programs at the top rating levels; and (4) The availability of high-rated programs for low-income children increased over time in the nine RTT-ELC states. [Additional contributions to this report were made by Amy Defnet, Adrienne Jones and Tara Wildszewski. For the related reports &quot;Are Ratings from Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement Systems Valid Measures of Program Quality? A Synthesis of Validation Studies from Race to the Top - Early Learning Challenge States. NCEE 2019-4001,&quot; see ED594510; &quot;Quality Ratings and System Characteristics: Patterns in the Round 1 Race to the Top - Early Learning Challenge States. Evaluation Brief. NCEE 2019-4004,&quot; see ED594512; and &quot;Implementation of Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement Systems in States That Received Race to the Top - Early Learning Challenge Grants. Study Highlights,&quot; see ED594516.]
Implementation of Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement Systems in States That Received Race to the Top - Early Learning Challenge Grants. Study Highlights
Author: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (ED)
Date: 2019-04-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: Educational Legislation,Federal Aid,Federal Legislation,Federal Programs,Achievement Rating,Program Implementation,Incentive Grants,Educational Quality,Special Needs Students,Enrollment,Child Care Centers,Rating Scales,Scores

Four recent publications describe the progress of nine states that received Round 1 Race to the Top - Early Learning Challenge (RTT-ELC) grants in implementing systems that rate early learning and development programs on quality and help them improve. These systems are known as tiered quality rating and improvement systems (TQRIS). RTT-ELC had five TQRIS objectives: (1) developing and adopting a common, statewide TQRIS; (2) promoting participation in the TQRIS; (3) rating and monitoring programs; (4) promoting access to high quality programs for children with high needs by increasing the number of programs in the top levels of the TQRIS, and increasing the number and percentage of children with high needs who are enrolled in programs in the top levels; and (5) validating the effectiveness of the TQRIS. [For the related reports &quot;Moving on Up? Program Quality Ratings under Race to the Top - Early Learning Challenge. Evaluation Brief. NCEE 2019-4000,&quot; see ED594514; &quot;Quality Ratings and System Characteristics: Patterns in the Round 1 Race to the Top - Early Learning Challenge States. Evaluation Brief. NCEE 2019-4004,&quot; see ED594512; &quot;Are Ratings from Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement Systems Valid Measures of Program Quality? A Synthesis of Validation Studies from Race to the Top - Early Learning Challenge States. NCEE 2019-4001,&quot; see ED594510; and &quot;Progress and Challenges in Developing Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement Systems (TQRIS) in the Round 1 Race to the Top - Early Learning Challenge (RTT-ELC) States. NCEE 2018-4003,&quot; see ED577788.]
What about the Schools? Factors Contributing to Expanded State Investment in School Facilities -- Case Study State #3: New Jersey
Author: Rivera, Marialena
Date: 2017-04-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Educational Facilities,Facilities Management,Public Schools,Educational Equity (Finance),Taxes,State Aid,Court Litigation,State Legislation,Resource Allocation,Debt (Financial),State Policy,Financial Policy,Educational Finance,Urban Schools

Through case studies of five states with varying facilities policies, the study presented in &quot;What about the Schools? Factors Contributing to Expanded State Investment in School Facilities&quot; examines the factors contributing to expanded state investment in equitable public school facilities and how those factors can be leveraged to encourage states that make minimal investments to expand their support for facilities funding. The five case study states are Massachusetts, New Jersey, Ohio, Texas, and Wyoming. This report provides details from the case study of New Jersey's school facilities investment over time, factors contributing to expanded state investment in equitable public school facilities, and equity of state facilities programs. [For the full report, &quot;What about the Schools? Factors Contributing to Expanded State Investment in School Facilities,&quot; see ED591718.]
What about the Schools? Factors Contributing to Expanded State Investment in School Facilities -- Case Study State #4: Massachusetts
Author: Rivera, Marialena
Date: 2017-04-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Educational Facilities,Facilities Management,Public Schools,Educational Equity (Finance),Taxes,State Aid,Court Litigation,State Legislation,Resource Allocation,Debt (Financial),State Policy,Financial Policy,Educational Finance

Through case studies of five states with varying facilities policies, the study presented in &quot;What about the Schools? Factors Contributing to Expanded State Investment in School Facilities&quot; examines the factors contributing to expanded state investment in equitable public school facilities and how those factors can be leveraged to encourage states that make minimal investments to expand their support for facilities funding. The five case study states are Massachusetts, New Jersey, Ohio, Texas, and Wyoming. This report provides details from the case study of Massachusetts' school facilities investment over time, factors contributing to expanded state investment in equitable public school facilities, and equity of state facilities programs. [For the full report, &quot;What about the Schools? Factors Contributing to Expanded State Investment in School Facilities,&quot; see ED591718.]
What about the Schools? Factors Contributing to Expanded State Investment in School Facilities -- Case Study State #5: Ohio
Author: Rivera, Marialena
Date: 2017-04-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Educational Facilities,Facilities Management,Public Schools,Educational Equity (Finance),Taxes,State Aid,Court Litigation,State Legislation,Resource Allocation,Debt (Financial),State Policy,Financial Policy,Educational Finance

Through case studies of five states with varying facilities policies, the study presented in &quot;What about the Schools? Factors Contributing to Expanded State Investment in School Facilities&quot; examines the factors contributing to expanded state investment in equitable public school facilities and how those factors can be leveraged to encourage states that make minimal investments to expand their support for facilities funding. The five case study states are Massachusetts, New Jersey, Ohio, Texas, and Wyoming. This report provides details from the case study of Ohio's school facilities investment over time, factors contributing to expanded state investment in equitable public school facilities, and equity of state facilities programs. [For the full report, &quot;What about the Schools? Factors Contributing to Expanded State Investment in School Facilities,&quot; see ED591718.]
The Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation Report, 2016
Author: Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation
Date: 2017-00-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Educational Finance,Educational Change,Higher Education,Income,Private Financial Support,Government Role,Philanthropic Foundations,Investment,Costs,Partnerships in Education,Fund Raising,Donors,Teacher Competencies,Educational Methods,Student Centered Learning,Classroom Environment,Instructional Design,Teacher Role,Teacher Leadership,Expenditures

The Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation's (WW's) 2016 Foundation Report includes audited financials for 2016, donor lists, and updates on the organization's work during the year--as described in &quot;WW Perspective: Preparing Teachers to Succeed in Today's and Tomorrow's Schools&quot; (Arthur Levine) and &quot;Letter of Transmittal&quot; (Stephanie J. Hull). [For the 2014-2015 report, see ED594509.]