ethanporcaro/eric-fulltext-meta huggingface dataset:
Innovation and Achievement: The Work of Four Not-for-Profit School Groups
Author: Rossignoli, Serena
Date: 2019-00-00
Type: Information Analyses
Subjects: Nonprofit Organizations,Low Income Groups,Nongovernmental Organizations,Access to Education,Educational Quality,Educational Opportunities,Foreign Countries,Elementary Education,Success,Governance,Accountability,Institutional Autonomy,Preschool Education

This report examines four not-for-profit school chains, run by non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in low-income contexts. These are Fe y Alegría, the Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee (better known by its acronym BRAC), Gyan Shala and Zambia Open Community Schools. Three of these organisations offer education at no cost (Fe y Alegría, BRAC and Zambia Open Community Schools), while the other charges very low fees (Gyan Shala). All four examples are large-scale operations running multiple schools, sometimes in multiple countries. All reach large numbers of pupils. The aim of this report is to provide insight for policymakers and others preoccupied with fulfilling: (a) the continuing and still urgent need to achieve Education for All; and (b) the pressing quest for improved quality and learning opportunities for those in school. The evidence is clear: huge numbers of children and young people still do not have access to education. Increasingly, it is apparent that even when they are in school, many students are not learning and are not leaving with even the most fundamental skills of reading, writing and basic calculation. Certain groups remain particularly vulnerable -- those in rural and challenging geographical locations, girls, children with disabilities, and children from ethnic minority groups. Each of the four school groups focused on offers its own interesting story. Collectively they provide an important and optimistic perspective on the apparently intractable challenges of achieving universal access and enhancing quality in education in developing countries. This review summarises the contribution these school chains have made to education improvements and suggests some of the key reasons behind their achievements.
State Education Funding: The Poverty Equation
Author: Katz, Nicole
Date: 2019-10-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: State Aid,Educational Finance,Poverty,Educational Equity (Finance),Resource Allocation

The correlation between socioeconomic status and academic achievement does not just apply to individual students--the concentration of poverty in schools matters, too. Schools with concentrated poverty require more state funding in order to best serve their students. But it is not just about how much; to be equitable, states must spend enough money on these schools and spend it well. In this paper, we identify four levels of funding equity, assess where states fall on the spectrum, and highlight the importance of strategic resource allocation in achieving equity for all students.
Title I, Part A Vision Partnership, 2016-2017. Evaluation Report
Author: Spikes, Sara
Date: 2018-02-21
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: School Districts,Vision,Health Services,Vision Tests,Academic Achievement,Student Participation,Achievement Tests,Reading Tests,Mathematics Tests,Standardized Tests,Visual Impairments,Grade 3,Grade 4,Grade 5,Grade 6,Grade 7,Grade 8,Elementary School Students

During the 2016-2017 school year, the Vision Partnership program provided vision services to approximately 3,353 students enrolled in the Houston Independent School District. This evaluation brief describes HISD students' participation in campus-based screenings and the Vision Partnership, and the academic achievement of students served by the program in the 2015-2016 school year. Students' academic achievement was measured on the 2016 and 2017 spring 3-8 STAAR [State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness] reading and mathematics assessments. Results indicate that a higher proportion of students enrolled in grade levels not required by the Texas Department of State Health Services to be screened failed their campus-based vision screen when compared to the results of peers enrolled in mandatory grade levels. Academic achievement data indicated that higher percentages of fourth- and seventh- grade students met the Approaches Grade Level Standard on the 2017 STAAR reading and mathematics assessments when compared to their performance on the 2016 STAAR assessments.
Vision Partnership, 2012-2013. Research Educational Program Report
Author: Houston Independent School District (HISD), Department of Research and Accountability
Date: 2014-06-05
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: Vision Tests,Vision,Visual Impairments,Screening Tests,Partnerships in Education,Student Needs,Health Needs,Assistive Technology,Access to Health Care,Elementary Secondary Education,Program Effectiveness,Standardized Tests,Scores,At Risk Students,Minority Group Students,Females,Racial Differences,Ethnicity,Gender Differences,Transportation,Clinics,Academic Achievement,Student Participation,Economically Disadvantaged,Student Characteristics,Special Education,Limited English Speaking,Academically Gifted,Age Differences,Barriers

The Vision Partnership is an alliance between the Houston Independent School District (HISD) and One Sight Vision Partnership that began in 2007 to address the vision and vision-related health needs of students who cannot afford eye care services. Vision screenings, consultations, and fittings for corrective eyewear are provided at no cost to students or their families during special events that are held throughout the school year at multiple clinics in non-academic community locations. Services are provided through the One Sight Vision Clinic, which is a part of an ongoing collaboration between One Sight, a Luxottica Group Foundation, See to Succeed, an initiative of VisionQuest 20/20; the Houston Department of Health and Human Services (HDHHS); various community organizations; and the district. The goal of the Vision Partnership is to enhance student achievement by ensuring that the basic vision and vision-related health needs of HISD students are met. This report provides information on three aspects of the program: student participation, barriers to program participation, and the academic performance of students served by the program. Because of limitations to the student-level participation and vision-related outcome data, this report is strictly descriptive and is not intended to be used to make causal inferences of the program's effectiveness at improving student performance in academic achievement.
Digital Advancement 2018: How Advancement Tools, Practices, and Attitudes Are Evolving toward Integrated, Digitally Enabled Advancement
Author: Stoner, Michael
Date: 2019-00-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: Institutional Advancement,Higher Education,Social Media,Benchmarking,College Presidents,Alumni,Fund Raising,Marketing,Video Technology,Administrator Attitudes,School Attitudes,Technology Uses in Education,Deans,College Administration,Reputation

The Council for Advancement and Support of Education (CASE) and mStoner conducted a survey of how schools, colleges and universities use various digital tools and techniques in alumni relations, communications, fundraising, and marketing. The study focused on how higher ed is adopting various digital tools and integrating them into advancement more broadly. The resulting white paper covers how advancement tools, practices, and attitudes are evolving toward integrated, digitally enabled advancement. Key findings from the white paper include: (1) 60 percent of institution's CMOs and CAOs report to the CEO. At 21 percent of institutions, the person acting as CMO reports to the CAO, and at 17 percent of institutions, there's another reporting structure in place. At 2 percent of institutions, the CAO reports to the CMO; (2) 57 percent of institutions report that they have one of more staff members who manage social media; (3) At 65 percent of institutions, &quot;create, sustain, improve brand image&quot; is one of the most important goals for social media; and (4) 65 percent of respondents say they are &quot;somewhat successful&quot; at using social media to achieve their goals.
The Roadmap for Racial Equity: An Imperative for Workforce Development Advocates
Author: Johnson, Melissa
Date: 2019-09-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Ethnic Diversity,Minority Groups,Racial Bias,Equal Education,Equal Opportunities (Jobs),Income,Employees,Labor Force Development,State Policy,Public Policy,Barriers,Immigrants,Job Training,Educational Attainment,Apprenticeships,Educational Certificates,English Language Learners,Personnel Selection,Geographic Location,Neighborhoods,Internet,Wages,Access to Health Care,Postsecondary Education,Career Development,High Schools,Student Financial Aid,Tuition,Correctional Education,Racial Segregation,Elementary Secondary Education,Educational Finance,Disproportionate Representation,Community Colleges,Vocational Education,Employers,Social Services,Family Programs,Federal Programs,Welfare Services,Block Grants,Federal Aid,Child Care,Grants

The ethnic and racial diversity of the residents of the United States of America is one of the country's unique strengths; however, Black, Latinx, Pacific Islander, Native, and certain Asian American workers face wide racial inequities in educational attainment, employment, and income. Additional workforce policies are needed now to counter decades of intentional, structurally racist policies and advance racial equity in educational attainment, employment, and income. As long as these disparities exist, the country is undercutting its own economic competitiveness. Racial workforce diversity is a key driver of America's economic growth as it is one of the most important predictors of business sales revenue, customer numbers, and profitability. This report builds the case for creating a racially inclusive workforce and recommends both state and federal workforce development policies that advance racial equity. It recognizes that the challenges faced by people of color with deep generational roots in the United States and the challenges faced by immigrants sometimes differ; however, the policy agenda included here aims to address inequities for people of color from both immigrant and non-immigrant backgrounds. This report also acknowledges that workforce training and education is a crucial component, &quot;but not the sole answer,&quot; to addressing the vast employment, income, and wealth inequities between people of color and White Americans in the U.S. This report outlines a list of initial ideas to counter structural racism by proactively advancing racial equity in postsecondary education, training, and employment. [Michael Richardson and Brooke DeRenzis contributed to this report.]
Title I, Part A and Title II, Part A Centralized Programs, 2013-2014. Research Educational Program Report
Author: Houston Independent School District (HISD), Department of Research and Accountability
Date: 2015-06-25
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: Educational Legislation,Federal Legislation,Elementary Secondary Education,Achievement Tests,Standardized Tests,Economically Disadvantaged,Budgets,Resource Allocation,School Districts,Academic Achievement,Faculty Development,Salaries,Teacher Salaries,Achievement Gains,Teacher Persistence,Elementary School Students,High School Students,Grade 3,Grade 4,Grade 5,Grade 6,Grade 7,Grade 8,Grade 9,Grade 10,Grade 11,Low Income Students,Educational Finance,Federal Aid,Early Childhood Education,At Risk Students,Expenditures,Spanish Speaking,Administrator Attitudes,Parent Attitudes

Title I, Part A and Title II, Part A funds are provided to Houston Independent School District (HISD) through the 2002 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), also known as the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). Both funds focus on enhancing student achievement, Title I, Part A through providing supplemental support for students to meet rigorous academic requirements, and Title II, Part A through providing supplemental programs for professional development for principals and teachers to support students' high achievement. In 2013-2014, Title I, Part A funds were allocated for ten HISD centralized programs and Title II, Part A supported eight HISD centralized programs; three of the programs received funds from both sources, for a total of 15 HISD centralized programs. This report documents the contributions of the 2013-2014 centralized programs in partial fulfillment of state and federal law that requires the district to account for funds received through ESEA.
HISD Title I, Part A and Title II, Part A Centralized Programs, 2014-2015. Research Educational Program Report
Author: Houston Independent School District (HISD), Department of Research and Accountability
Date: 2016-06-27
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: Educational Legislation,Federal Legislation,Elementary Secondary Education,Achievement Tests,Standardized Tests,Economically Disadvantaged,Budgets,Resource Allocation,School Districts,Academic Achievement,Faculty Development,Salaries,Teacher Salaries,Achievement Gains,Teacher Persistence,Elementary School Students,High School Students,Grade 3,Grade 4,Grade 5,Grade 6,Grade 7,Grade 8,Grade 9,Grade 10,Grade 11,Low Income Students,Educational Finance,Federal Aid,Early Childhood Education,At Risk Students,Expenditures,Spanish Speaking,Administrator Attitudes,Parent Attitudes

Title I, Part A and Title II, Part A funds are provided to Houston Independent School District (HISD) through the 2002 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), also known as the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). Both funds focus on enhancing student achievement: Title I, Part A provides supplemental support for students to meet rigorous academic requirements, and Title II, Part A provides supplemental programs for professional development for principals and teachers to support students' academic progress. In 2014-2015, Title I, Part A funds were allocated for 11 HISD centralized programs and Title II, Part A supported 13 HISD centralized programs; four of the programs received funds from both sources, for a total of 20 HISD centralized programs. This report documents the contributions of the 2014-2015 centralized programs in partial fulfillment of state and federal law that requires the district to account for funds received through ESEA.
HISD Title I, Part A and Title II, Part A Centralized Programs, 2015-2016. Research Educational Program Report
Author: Houston Independent School District (HISD), Department of Research and Accountability
Date: 2017-05-22
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: Educational Legislation,Federal Legislation,Elementary Secondary Education,Achievement Tests,Standardized Tests,Economically Disadvantaged,Budgets,Resource Allocation,School Districts,Academic Achievement,Faculty Development,Salaries,Teacher Salaries,Achievement Gains,Teacher Persistence,Elementary School Students,High School Students,Grade 3,Grade 4,Grade 5,Grade 6,Grade 7,Grade 8,Grade 9,Grade 10,Grade 11,Low Income Students,Educational Finance,Federal Aid,Early Childhood Education,At Risk Students,Expenditures,Spanish Speaking,Administrator Attitudes,Parent Attitudes

Title I, Part A and Title II, Part A funds are provided to Houston Independent School District (HISD) through the 2002 reauthorization of the &quot;Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965&quot; (ESEA), also known as the &quot;No Child Left Behind Act of 2001&quot; (NCLB). ESEA was reauthorized in 2015 as the &quot;Every Student Succeeds Act&quot; (ESSA). Both funds focus on enhancing student achievement: Title I, Part A provides supplemental support for students to meet rigorous academic requirements, and Title II, Part A provides supplemental programs for professional development for principals and teachers to support students' academic progress. In 2015-2016, Title I, Part A funds were allocated for 11 HISD centralized programs and Title II, Part A supported 11 HISD centralized programs; three of the programs received funds from both sources, for a total of 19 HISD centralized programs. This report documents the contributions of the 2015-2016 centralized programs in partial fulfillment of state and federal law that requires the district to account for funds received through ESEA.
HISD Title I, Part A and Title II, Part A Centralized Programs, 2016-2017. Research Educational Program Report
Author: Houston Independent School District (HISD), Department of Research and Accountability
Date: 2018-04-17
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: Educational Legislation,Federal Legislation,Elementary Secondary Education,Achievement Tests,Standardized Tests,Economically Disadvantaged,Budgets,Resource Allocation,School Districts,Academic Achievement,Faculty Development,Salaries,Teacher Salaries,Achievement Gains,Teacher Persistence,Elementary School Students,High School Students,Grade 3,Grade 4,Grade 5,Grade 6,Grade 7,Grade 8,Grade 9,Grade 10,Grade 11,Low Income Students,Educational Finance,Federal Aid,Early Childhood Education,At Risk Students,Expenditures,Spanish Speaking,Administrator Attitudes,Parent Attitudes

Title I, Part A and Title II, Part A funds are provided to Houston Independent School District (HISD) through the 2015 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), also known as Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). Both funds focus on enhancing student achievement: Title I, Part A provides supplemental support for students to meet rigorous academic requirements, and Title II, Part A provides supplemental programs for professional development for principals and teachers to support students' academic progress. In 2016-2017, Title I, Part A funds were allocated for nine (9) HISD centralized programs and Title II, Part A supported nine (9) HISD centralized programs; two of the programs received funds from both sources, for a total of 16 HISD centralized programs. This report documents the contributions of the 2016-2017 centralized programs in partial fulfillment of state and federal law that requires the district to account for funds received through ESEA.
HISD Title I, Part A, Title II, Part A and Title IV, Part A Centralized Programs, 2017-2018. Research Educational Program Report
Author: Houston Independent School District (HISD), Department of Research and Accountability
Date: 2019-03-22
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: Elementary Secondary Education,Educational Legislation,Federal Legislation,Disadvantaged Youth,Economically Disadvantaged,Underachievement,Academic Standards,Professional Development,Student Needs,Academic Support Services,Achievement Gains,Budgets,Resource Allocation,Financial Support,Program Effectiveness,Academic Achievement,Faculty Development

Title I, Part A, Title II, Part A, and Title IV, Part A funds are provided to the Houston Independent School District (HISD) through the 2015 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), also known as the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). All three funds focus on enhancing student achievement: Title I, Part A provides supplemental support for students to meet rigorous academic requirements; Title II, Part A provides supplemental programs for professional development for principals and teachers to support students' academic progress; and Title IV, Part A funds are used to provide all students with access to a well-rounded education, improve school conditions for student learning (Health and Safety), and support the use of technology to improve the academic achievement and digital literacy of all students. In 2017-2018, Title I, Part A funds were allocated for seven HISD centralized programs, Title II, Part A funds supported eight HISD centralized programs, and Title IV, Part A funds supported three programs. In addition, three programs were supported by multiple funding sources. This report documents the contributions of the 2017-2018 centralized programs in partial fulfillment of state and federal laws that require the district to account for funds received through ESSA.
Revenues and Expenditures for Public Elementary and Secondary Education: FY 17. Finance Tables. NCES 2020-301
Author: Cornman, Stephen Q.
Date: 2020-02-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: Elementary Secondary Education,Income,Expenditures,Educational Finance,Public Schools,Expenditure per Student,Tables (Data),National Surveys,Public Education,Salaries,Fringe Benefits,Student Personnel Services,Academic Support Services,School Administration,School Maintenance,Student Transportation,Food Service,Resources

This set of tables introduces new data for national and state-level public elementary and secondary revenues and expenditures for fiscal year (FY) 2017. Specifically, this report includes the following school finance data: (1) revenue and expenditure totals; (2) revenues by source; (3) expenditures by function and object; (4) current expenditures; and (5) current expenditures per pupil. The finance data used in this report are from the National Public Education Financial Survey (NPEFS), a component of the Common Core of Data (CCD). The CCD is the primary National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) database on public elementary and secondary education in the United States.
Understanding Social Equity in Australian Universities as a Wicked Problem
Author: Gibbs, Gael F.
Date: 2013-00-00
Type: Speeches/Meeting Papers
Subjects: Foreign Countries,Social Justice,Equal Education,Higher Education,Access to Education,Public Policy,Social Problems,Social Bias,Educational Policy

Improving social equity in the Australian university sector is a complex and ill-defined problem that is underwritten by the diversity of values and interests inherent in our pluralistic society. It displays all hallmarks of being a 'wicked problem' (Rittel and Webber 1973), including having resisted resolution through federal policy initiatives for more than a quarter a century. This paper utilises the theoretical framework of 'wicked problems' to identify a gap in the current understanding of social equity in Australian universities and contribute to a re-framing of the conversation about social equity. Following Krause (2012), this paper proposes improving social equity in the Australian university sector as an ill-defined and under-theorised problem associated with high stakes, national policymaking and funding and theorises problem formulation as a critical generative process in problem resolution. Using discourse analysis this paper demonstrates how the problem of improving social equity in the Australian university sector has been formulated in an increasingly reductive way in contemporary federal higher education policies, from the Dawkins era (late 1980s) to the Bradley era (current). It explains how a one-dimensional understanding of social equity as the proportional representation of specific population subgroups has precipitated a limited approach to problem formulation and resolution. Correspondingly, it shows that the concept of social equity has been diminished through reductive reformulation of key concepts such as 'access', conceived in the Dawkins era policies as a means for the achievement of a fair opportunity for success but currently understood, in Bradley era policies, to constitute the sole provision of universities that is to be fairly distributed. Finally, this paper calls for the development a more comprehensive, complex and nuanced formulation of the problem of improving social equity in the Australian university sector and suggests re-framing (Jerneck &amp; Olsson, 2011) as a tool capable of recognizing, acknowledging and addressing the pluralism and multiplicity which underwrite the 'wicked dynamics' (Krause 2012) of the problem.