ethanporcaro/eric-fulltext-meta huggingface dataset:
Are All Students Getting Equal Access to High-Quality Science Education? Data from the 2018 NSSME+
Author: Trygstad, Peggy J.
Date: 2020-11-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: Equal Education,Educational Quality,Science Education,Low Income Students,Urban Schools,Suburban Schools,Rural Schools,Disproportionate Representation,Minority Group Students,Science Achievement,Science Instruction,Educational Resources,Teacher Characteristics,Readiness,Educational Environment,Elementary Secondary Education,Low Achievement,High Achievement,Elementary School Students,Middle School Students,High School Students

In 2018, the National Science Foundation supported the sixth in a series of surveys through a grant to Horizon Research, Inc. (HRI). This series of studies has been known as the National Survey of Science and Mathematics Education (NSSME). The 2018 NSSME+ was designed to provide up-to-date information and to identify trends in the areas of teacher background and experience, curriculum and instruction, and the availability and use of instructional resources. Although not designed primarily as an equity study, the 2018 NSSME+ provides data on some indicators of the extent to which students across the nation have equitable educational opportunities. To this end, data from the study were analyzed by four factors historically associated with differences in educational opportunities: (1) percentage of students in the school eligible for free/reduced-price lunch (FRL); (2) community type; (3) percentage of students in the class from race/ethnicity groups historically underrepresented in STEM (HUS); and (4) prior achievement level of the class. This report is organized by these equity factors, with each chapter highlighting the distribution of four educational resources among K-12 schools and classrooms in the United States: (1) nature of instruction; (2) material resources; (3) well-prepared teachers; and (4) supportive context for learning. Data from the 2018 NSSME+, both individual items and composite variables, are shown in tables, with the standard errors for the estimates included in parentheses. Within each equity factor, comparisons were made between groups. In addition, when possible, data from the 2018 and 2012 studies were compared to examine whether the magnitude of differences between groups changed across the two time points. [For &quot;Report of the 2018 NSSME+,&quot; see ED598121. For &quot;Are All Students Getting Equal Access to High-Quality Mathematics Education? Data from the 2018 NSSME+,&quot; see ED607621.]
All Data Points for All States. 50-State Comparison: Developmental Education Policies
Author: Education Commission of the States
Date: 2021-04-00
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: Developmental Studies Programs,Remedial Programs,Academic Support Services,College Readiness,Student Placement,State Policy,Placement Tests,Cutting Scores,Teaching Methods,Transcripts (Written Records),College Entrance Examinations,Tests,Scores,High School Equivalency Programs,State Standards

Developmental education assessment and placement policies guide how students may demonstrate college readiness and are placed into college-level courses. States and postsecondary systems use a variety of measures to determine a student's college readiness. Often, policies require that students submit scores from a national, standardized test. Some states and postsecondary systems allow students to submit additional evidence of their college readiness to supplement -- or in lieu of -- an assessment score. Assessment scores and other measures of college readiness determine whether a student is placed into college-level coursework or developmental education. This document is part of the &quot;50-State Comparison: Developmental Education Policies&quot; that provides a national perspective on developmental education assessment and placement policies. The document presents data on all of the data points on developmental education policies for all states. [View the full &quot;50-State Comparison: Developmental Education Policies&quot; here: https://www.ecs.org/50-state-comparison-developmental-education-policies/.]
Higher Education during the Time of COVID-19: A Review of Literature
Author: Jena, Ananta Kumar
Date: 2021-00-00
Type: Journal Articles
Subjects: Higher Education,COVID-19,Pandemics,School Closing,Educational Technology,Electronic Learning,Online Courses,Disease Control,Health,Foreign Countries,Distance Education,Readiness,Teacher Effectiveness,Attitudes,Knowledge Level,Competence,Access to Education,Teacher Attitudes,Synchronous Communication,Asynchronous Communication,Program Effectiveness

This article reviews the scientific literature that depicts the influence of the COVID-19 on higher education. Fourteen studies examined pandemic coronavirus's effect on the human respiratory system and its impact on higher education. Nine studies reviewed related to UNESCO and WHO reports, and thirty studies relating to the staff readiness, teachers' efficiency, and e-learning during the lockdown era of COVID-19. Likewise, sixteen peer-reviewed journal articles relating the effect of e-learning on learners' performance and eight studies reviewed relating to the participants' perception included (e.g., awareness and attitude of learning, skills and competency, practical knowledge, assessment and evaluation, class promotion, and accessibility of education. Finally, five studies are regarding the outcomes addressed satisfactory and in the expected direction. It resulted in fourteen studies in a positive trend regarding the COVID-19 pandemic affecting learning. Seven studies reviewed the reports of UNESCO and WHO, and twenty-five studies examined the perception of staff readiness found positive. Twelve studies found the positive in the direction of synchronous and asynchronous e-learning; four studies found that participants have a positive response towards online learning, and the outcomes of three investigations found in the expected direction.
Is There a State or Systemwide Developmental Education Assessment and Placement Policy? 50-State Comparison: Developmental Education Policies
Author: Education Commission of the States
Date: 2021-04-00
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: Developmental Studies Programs,Remedial Programs,Academic Support Services,College Readiness,Student Placement,State Policy,Placement Tests,Cutting Scores,State Standards

This resource provides data on state and systemwide developmental education assessment and placement policies. Depending on the unique higher education governance structure in each state, a state may have several policies included in this resource. System-level initiatives, programs and collaborations are excluded from this review. A few states did not identify an assessment and placement policy, but did identify a relevant developmental education policy; those states are noted as &quot;No assessment and placement policy identified.&quot; [View the full &quot;50-State Comparison: Developmental Education Policies&quot; here: https://www.ecs.org/50-state-comparison-developmental-education-policies/.]
Are Approved Assessment Instruments Identified? If So, Which Assessments Are Used or Allowed? Are Uniform Cut Scores Identified? If So, What Are the Cut Scores for These Common Assessments? 50-State Comparison: Developmental Education Policies
Author: Education Commission of the States
Date: 2021-04-00
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: Developmental Studies Programs,Remedial Programs,Academic Support Services,College Readiness,Student Placement,State Policy,Placement Tests,Cutting Scores,College Entrance Examinations,Scores,High School Equivalency Programs,State Standards,Standardized Tests,Equivalency Tests

This resource provides data on the use of assessment instruments and uniform cut scores. The cut scores presented in this resource are the lowest scores a student can receive on an assessment to be considered college-ready. An asterisk indicates that the state uses a subject area test score for the SAT. &quot;SAT (new)&quot; refers to scores received on the SAT administered after March 2016. &quot;SAT (old)&quot; refers to scores received on the SAT administered prior to March 2016. The COMPASS assessment is no longer administered; however, many states and systems still accept COMPASS scores received within a certain time period. [View the full &quot;50-State Comparison: Developmental Education Policies&quot; here: https://www.ecs.org/50-state-comparison-developmental-education-policies/.]
Are Multiple Measures Allowed to Determine Placement? If So, Which Measures Are Used or Allowed? 50-State Comparison: Developmental Education Policies
Author: Education Commission of the States
Date: 2021-04-00
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: Developmental Studies Programs,Remedial Programs,Academic Support Services,Student Placement,State Policy,Placement Tests,Transcripts (Written Records),College Entrance Examinations,Tests,Scores,High School Equivalency Programs,State Standards,Grade Point Average,High School Students,Work Experience,Student Characteristics

Multiple measures provide additional evidence a student may present, beyond an assessment score, that can indicate college readiness. This resource provides data on multiple measures that may be allowed to determine placement using the following categories: (1) other standardized and normed exams, or locally developed exams; (2) high school academic performance (e.g., GPA, transcript, coursework); (3) college academic performance (e.g., PLA credit, GPA, transcript, coursework); (4) noncognitive factors (e.g., motivation, attitude, emotions); and (5) work experience. No policy identified&quot; does not indicate that multiple measures are prohibited. [View the full &quot;50-State Comparison: Developmental Education Policies&quot; here: https://www.ecs.org/50-state-comparison-developmental-education-policies/.]
Are Instructional Methods Addressed? If So, Which Methods Are Used or Allowed? 50-State Comparison: Developmental Education Policies
Author: Education Commission of the States
Date: 2021-04-00
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: Developmental Studies Programs,Remedial Programs,Academic Support Services,College Readiness,Student Placement,State Policy,State Standards,Teaching Methods

Twenty-six states or systems have authorized the use of innovative developmental education instructional methods and interventions. This resource provides data on the use of instructional methods, and which ones are used or allowed per state. [View the full &quot;50-State Comparison: Developmental Education Policies&quot; here: https://www.ecs.org/50-state-comparison-developmental-education-policies/.]
Long-Term English Learners (LTELs): Predictors, Patterns, &amp; Outcomes. Brief 1: Defining LTEL
Author: Cashiola, Lizzy
Date: 2020-11-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: English Language Learners,Language Proficiency,Definitions,Classification,Criteria,Outcomes of Education,Student Characteristics,Public Schools,School Districts,Intervention,Prediction,Alignment (Education)

This is the first in a series of briefs the Houston Education Research Consortium (HERC) will release on long-term English learners (LTELs). The full study will examine LTELs in Texas, with particular focus on 10 Houston-area public school districts. Currently, there is no formal definition of LTEL in Texas. The purpose of this brief was to compare three common definitions of LTEL (remaining an English learner for more than three years, more than five years, and more than seven years) using seven criteria based on its research and practitioner application to identify the most useful definition. The definition of LTEL as remaining EL after five years satisfied the most criteria. Using this definition of LTEL, HERC will move forward with this study by examining characteristics of LTELs and the schools that serve them, overall patterns of reclassification for ELs and LTELs, and the educational outcomes of LTELs.
Is Corequisite Support Addressed? If So, Is It Required or Allowed? 50-State Comparison: Developmental Education Policies
Author: Education Commission of the States
Date: 2021-04-00
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: Developmental Studies Programs,Remedial Programs,Academic Support Services,Student Placement,State Policy,Teaching Methods,State Standards

Sometimes referred to as corequisite remediation, corequisite support refers to college-level coursework that integrates additional support for students, usually in the form of an academic support class. This resource provides data on whether or not corequisite support is addressed, and if so, if it is required or allowed. [View the full &quot;50-State Comparison: Developmental Education Policies&quot; here: https://www.ecs.org/50-state-comparison-developmental-education-policies/.]
Does State Statute Include Reporting Requirements? 50-State Comparison: Developmental Education Policies
Author: Education Commission of the States
Date: 2021-04-00
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: Developmental Studies Programs,Remedial Programs,State Policy,State Standards,Reports,Student Characteristics,Success,Graduation Rate,Costs,High School Graduates

This resource provides data on reporting requirements determined by state statute. Only statutorily created requirements are included. In this resource, the following categories are used: (1) student populations (e.g., recent high school graduates, total number or percentage of students enrolled in developmental courses); (2) student characteristics (e.g., demographics, developmental education needs, college readiness, high school GPA); (3) student success (e.g., pass rates, graduation rates, successful completion of gateway courses); (4) high school feedback data; and (5) cost of developmental education. [View the full &quot;50-State Comparison: Developmental Education Policies&quot; here: https://www.ecs.org/50-state-comparison-developmental-education-policies/.]
Changing Schools, Part 4: Differences in School Year Student Mobility by Subgroup
Author: Potter, Daniel
Date: 2021-04-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: Student Mobility,Public Schools,Urban Schools,Elementary Secondary Education,School Districts,Racial Differences,Ethnicity,Socioeconomic Status,English Language Learners,Low Income Students,Disproportionate Representation,Student Attrition,Time

In a series of research briefs, the Houston Education Research Consortium (HERC) examines and describes the amount of student mobility in Texas, with particular focus on Houston area public schools. This fourth research brief provides an overview of patterns of student mobility differed by race, socioeconomic status, and English learner status. This study used seven years of data from the state of Texas (2010-11 through 2016-17) to illustrate how statewide patterns of school year student mobility differed by subgroup. There were differences in the rates of mobility during the school year by both race and socioeconomic status. Specifically, Black students and economically disadvantaged students had higher mobility rates than their peers from other subgroups. There were also subgroup differences in the destination of these moves. A higher percent of the moves made by Hispanic and Black students, economically disadvantaged students, and English learners (EL) students took place within district. A higher percent of moves made by White, Asian, and non-economically disadvantaged students took place out of the Texas Public School System (TPSS). [For &quot;Changing Schools, Part 3: Student Mobility within and between Districts in Texas and the Houston Area,&quot; see ED611146.]
Literacy Now Reading Intervention Program: A Cohort Analysis of Reading Achievement at Selected HISD Campuses, 2020-2021. Research Educational Program Report
Author: Graham, Georgia
Date: 2021-02-10
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: Literacy Education,Reading Programs,Kindergarten,Elementary School Students,Grade 1,Grade 2,Intervention,Reading Attitudes,Individualized Instruction,Small Group Instruction,Family Literacy,Parent Participation,Parent Workshops,Books,Program Descriptions,Teacher Attitudes,Program Effectiveness,Program Evaluation,Scores,Reading Tests,Achievement Gains,Economically Disadvantaged,Race,English Language Learners,Student Characteristics,Benchmarking,Comparative Analysis,African American Students,Hispanic American Students,Reading Achievement,School Readiness,Cohort Analysis

Since 2007, nineteen Houston Independent School District (HISD) campuses have partnered with Literacy Now to offer the Reading Intervention program. The Reading Intervention program provides individualized, small group reading tutorials for at-risk students in kindergarten to second grade to create proficient readers by the end of third grade. Literacy Now also supports literacy development at home (Parent Engagement Workshops, Book Distribution, Family Literacy Night, and monthly newsletters). Between 2015 and 2019, 996 students in kindergarten to second grade from 11 HISD campuses participated in the Reading Intervention program. During this period, results from a post-program survey, on a 3.0 scale, found that teachers observed that the program was beneficial to students (M = 2.62), grades improved (M = 2.51), and students displayed greater confidence in reading (M = 2.48). The evaluation employed a two-group quasi-experimental design with an intervention group and a control group to examine the effectiveness of the program on two cohorts of students from 2015-2016 and 2016-2017. The evaluation found that kindergarten and first-grade students in both cohorts who participated in the reading intervention program showed significant differences between the pre-and post-test scores on Istation for the average proficiency rate in reading immediately after completing the program. Compared to their grade-level peers, first graders, English language learners, Black, or economically disadvantaged students who participated in the Reading Intervention program showed higher percentage points increase in their reading performance on STAAR grade 3 reading assessment. The three-year mean percentage of the students who met the Approaches grade-level benchmark score fell within 15 percentage points of their campus-level peers on STAAR grade 3 reading at Piney Point (6%), Walnut Bend (10%), Ross (11%), Bruce (15%), and McGowen (15%).
Implementing COVID-19 Routine Testing in K-12 Schools: Lessons and Recommendations from Pilot Sites
Author: Vohra, Divya
Date: 2021-07-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: COVID-19,Pandemics,School Districts,Educational Environment,Immunization Programs,School Safety,Disease Control,Federal Aid,Kindergarten,Elementary Secondary Education,Pilot Projects,Public Policy,Public Agencies,Cooperation,Demonstration Programs,Public Health,Correlation,Trust (Psychology),Sustainability,Public Officials,Guidance,Testing,Tests,Epidemiology,Diagnostic Tests

In the 2020-2021 school year, many schools and districts around the country implemented routine COVID-19 testing to proactively detect cases among teachers, students, and staff and stop the spread of the virus. Such testing made it possible for many communities to gain the needed support from teachers and parents to reopen schools and resume in-person learning, helping to guard against learning loss for an entire generation of students. Even as public attention has turned to vaccines, testing remains essential for making schools a safe and trusted environment because it offers an important layer of protection. This protection is especially critical as schools and communities contend with the emergence of new COVID-19 variants, delayed vaccine rollout for young children, and the relaxation of other key mitigation measures such as masking and distancing. Furthermore, new federal funding provides school districts with the resources necessary to implement and sustain routine testing programs through the coming school year, although many will require practical guidance and hands-on assistance to implement routine testing in school settings. This report is based on the Rockefeller Foundation's K-12 Testing Protocol Demonstration Project. This demonstration project included six sites (Rhode Island; Los Angeles, CA; Louisville, KY; New Orleans, LA; Tulsa, OK; Washington, DC) partnering with Duke-Margolis Center for Health Policy and Johns Hopkins University to implement routine COVID-19 testing in 335 schools across the country between September 2020 and June 2021. These pilot sites administered nearly 200,000 COVID-19 tests, including many of the 140,000 BinaxNOW tests that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services provided sites as well as other rapid antigen and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests procured by state officials or school districts themselves. It found that routine testing can be highly effective at reducing within-school COVID-19 transmission, with some testing strategies completely eliminating transmission. But to sustain successful routine testing programs, schools will require the ongoing support of community leaders to retain trust in and enthusiasm for testing as well as coordinated guidance and resources from state and national education and public health authorities.
Exit Only or Revolving Doors: Student Mobility to and from Non-Texas Public Schools and Non-District Charters
Author: Potter, Daniel
Date: 2021-05-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: Student Mobility,Public Schools,Charter Schools,Private Schools,Home Schooling,Elementary Secondary Education,School Choice

Every year, thousands of students leave traditional, Houston-area public schools for private schools, homeschools, or non-district charter schools. Some of these students eventually return to the public school setting. To investigate this phenomenon of &quot;returners,&quot; the researchers followed two types of leavers in a cohort of Houston-area students to see if and when they return. First, they followed students who left the Texas public school system (TPSS) entirely. Because these students left TPSS entirely, it was not clear where they went (i.e., private schools, schools in other states), and only one-third of these leavers returned and stayed in Texas public schools. Second, they followed students who left traditional public schools for non-district charter schools. Since charter schools in Texas are public schools, they were able to follow leavers, and found that nearly 60 percent of these leavers eventually returned to and stayed at a traditional public school. Understanding that certain types of mobility function as a &quot;revolving door&quot; between educational entities has implications for how schools inform, serve, and support their students and families. The purpose of this brief is to help districts understand the prevalence of returners in the Houston area and understand the timing of when they re-enter a Texas public school.