ethanporcaro/eric-fulltext-meta huggingface dataset:
University of North Florida Accountability Plan, 2021
Author: State University System of Florida, Board of Governors
Date: 2021-06-23
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: State Universities,Accountability,Strategic Planning,Educational Indicators,Educational Finance,Enrollment Management,Educational Quality,Efficiency,Graduation Rate,Improvement Programs,Achievement,Institutional Characteristics,Undergraduate Students,Graduate Students,College Programs,Outcomes of Education

The Accountability Plan is an annual report that is closely aligned with the Board of Governors' 2025 System Strategic Plan. This report enhances the System's commitment to accountability and strategic planning by fostering greater coordination between institutional administrators, University Boards of Trustees and the Board of Governors regarding each institution's direction and priorities as well as performance expectations and outcomes on institutional and System-wide goals. Contents include: (1) Introduction; (2) Strategy; (3) Performance-Based Funding Metrics; (4) Key Performance Indicators; (5) Enrollment Planning; (6) Academic Program Coordination; and (7) Definitions. [For &quot;University of North Florida Accountability Plan, 2020,&quot; see ED610454.]
How Are We Doing? Children &quot;and&quot; Youth in Government Care &quot;and&quot; Youth on Youth Agreements
Author: Ministry of Education (British Columbia)
Date: 2018-09-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: Foreign Countries,Outcomes of Education,Child Care,Government Role,Federal Programs,Adoption,Special Needs Students,Indigenous Populations,Student Development,Well Being,Career Development

In October 2017, the Representative for Children and Youth (RCY) publicly released &quot;Room for Improvement: Toward Better Education Outcomes for Children Care.&quot; The report focused on discrepancies in educational outcomes for children in government care compared to all children and made six recommendations to the ministries of Education and Children and Family Development. This report addresses one of those six recommendations: to publicly report on educational outcomes of children and youth in government care, by September 2018. This report focuses on students who have come into government care (CYIC), including those on a Continuing Custody Order (CCO), youth agreement (YAG), interim and temporary custody orders, special needs or voluntary care agreements, and children under custody orders from another province or jurisdiction. This report uses a Non-CYIC cohort as a reference point for the educational outcomes of children and youth in care. This cohort is not the same as a &quot;provincial average&quot; which includes students of all ages, including adults and graduated adults. The Non-CYIC cohort was defined to be consistent with the CYIC cohort definition. As the Ministry of Children and Family Development's Family Preservation programs improve, fewer children will come into government care and the ones who do come into care may have the greatest needs. It may become increasingly more difficult for CYIC to emulate Non-CYIC.
Chutes or Ladders? Strengthening California Community College Transfer so More Students Earn the Degrees They Seek
Author: Reddy, Vikash
Date: 2021-06-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: Community Colleges,Two Year College Students,College Transfer Students,Equal Education,Access to Education,Minority Group Students,Enrollment Trends,Bachelors Degrees,Educational Attainment,Racial Bias,Ethnicity,College Admission,Admission Criteria,Associate Degrees,College Credits,Costs,Student Characteristics,Institutional Characteristics,Private Colleges,Public Colleges,Proprietary Schools,Graduation Rate,Barriers,Grade Point Average

In the classic game of &quot;Chutes and Ladders,&quot; the player can see square 100--the finish line--but it is not easy to get there. The player may climb one ladder only to land on the wrong spot and be sent spiraling down a chute. In the game, players are aiming for the blue ribbon on square 100, but for students enrolling in college, the prize is a bachelor's degree, and the key number is the 120 credits needed to get there. Like &quot;Chutes and Ladders&quot; players, California community college students who want to transfer to a four-year college or university are trying to make progress, but one bad roll of the dice can set them back several turns. The California Community Colleges (CCC) are central to the economic strength and social mobility of California and its residents. They serve the majority of undergraduates in California. Each year, over 2 million students attend one of the 116 community colleges across the state, including the online campus--Cal Bright. In 2019-2020, these students included almost a half million first-time freshmen seeking to earn an associate degree and/or transfer to a four-year university. Unfortunately, if past data trends persist, only 2.5 percent of them will transfer in two years, and fewer than a quarter (23 percent) will transfer in four. In this report, we examine the ways in which the transfer pathway is central to remedying racial inequity in higher education access and success and to producing the educated workforce California needs. We document the impact of the Associate Degree for Transfer (ADT) on improving the transfer pathway--the extent of its reach, notable variance by students' race/ethnicity, and differences in access by college campus and major, both at California's community colleges and at the state's four-year universities. Finally, we offer recommendations to policymakers and campus leaders for removing remaining obstacles for students in the transfer process and for strengthening the ADT pathway and ensuring it becomes the preferred degree pathway for California's transfer students. [This report was written with guidance and significant contributions from Michele Siqueiros. For the executive summary, see ED613824.]
Heterogeneity in the Effects of College Course Placement
Author: Daugherty, Lindsay
Date: 2021-03-26
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: College Students,College Readiness,Student Placement,College Mathematics,Developmental Studies Programs,Student Characteristics,Majors (Students),Bachelors Degrees,Academic Aspiration,Limited English Speaking,Economically Disadvantaged,Part Time Students,College Bound Students,Academic Advising,Outcomes of Education

Traditionally colleges have relied on standalone non-credit-bearing developmental education (DE) to support students academically and ensure readiness for college-level courses. As emerging evidence has raised concerns about the effectiveness of DE courses, colleges and states have been experimenting with approaches that place students into credit-bearing coursework more quickly. To better understand which types of students might be most likely to benefit from being placed into college-level math coursework, this study examines heterogeneity in the causal effects of placement into college-level courses using a regression discontinuity design and administrative data from the state of Texas. We focus on student characteristics that are related to academic preparation or might signal a student's likelihood of success or need for additional support and might therefore be factors considered for placement into college-level courses under &quot;holistic advising&quot; or &quot;multiple measures&quot; initiatives. We find heterogeneity in outcomes for many of the measures we examined. Students who declared an academic major designation, had bachelor's degree aspirations, tested below college readiness on multiple subjects, were designated as Limited English Proficiency (LEP), and/or were economically disadvantaged status were more likely to benefit from placement into college-level math. Part-time enrollment or being over the age of 21 were associated with reduced benefits from placement into college-level math. We do not find any heterogeneity in outcomes for our high school achievement measure, three or more years of math taken in high school. [This is the online version of an article published in &quot;Research in Higher Education.&quot;]
Locus of Control of Graduate Students
Author: Manichander, T.
Date: 2019-04-00
Type: Journal Articles
Subjects: Graduate Students,Locus of Control,Gender Differences,Geographic Location,Institutional Characteristics,Private Colleges,Public Colleges,Foreign Countries,Self Efficacy

The purpose of this study was to identify the effect of gender, locality, and management on the locus of control of graduate students. About 200 graduate students participated in the study. Locus of Control Scale (LCS-NSBY) developed by Samayalangki Nongtdu &amp; Dr. Yodida Bhutia (2018) was used to assess the locus of control of students. The t-test was applied for data analysis. Results found that there is a significant difference between male and female graduate students in their internal locus of control, but no significant difference between male and female graduate students in their external locus of control. However, there is a significant difference in their internal and external locus of control of graduate students in terms of locality. The study also indicated that there is a significant difference between government and private college graduate students in their internal locus of control, but no significant difference between government and private college graduate students in their external locus of control.
Academic Procrastination and Locus of Control of Graduate Students
Author: Manichander, T.
Date: 2020-04-00
Type: Journal Articles
Subjects: Foreign Countries,Graduate Students,Student Behavior,Locus of Control,Time Management,Correlation,Student Attitudes,Expectation,Majors (Students)

The present study was aimed to find out the relationship between academic procrastination and locus of control of graduate students. Survey method was conducted on a stratified random sample of 200 graduate students. In order to collect data, Academic Procrastination Scale (APS-GSBL) developed by Dr. Savita Gupta and Liyaqat Bashir (2018) and Locus of Control Scale (LCS-NSBY) developed by Samayalangki Nongtdu and Dr. Yodida Bhutia (2018) were used. t-test and 'r' value were used for data analysis. Major findings indicated that there is significant relationship between (i) academic procrastination and internal locus of control of graduate students and (ii) academic procrastination and external locus of control of graduate students.
An Investigation of Academic Procrastination of Graduate Students
Author: Manichander, T.
Date: 2019-07-00
Type: Journal Articles
Subjects: Time Management,Graduate Students,Gender Differences,Rural Urban Differences,Psychological Patterns,Personality Traits

This study was attempted to find out the academic procrastination of graduate students. The survey method was used. A stratified random sample of 200 graduate students was chosen for this study. Academic Procrastination Scale (APS-GSBL) developed by Dr. Savita Gupta &amp; Liyaqat Bashir (2018) was used to collect the data. To analyze the data, t-test was applied through SPSS 20.0 version software. Results found that there is a significant difference in the time management and sincerity between male and female students, but there is no significant difference in the task aversiveness and personal initiative between male and female students. Findings also showed that there is a significant difference in the time management, task aversiveness, sincerity, and personal initiative between rural and urban students. However, there is a significant difference in the time management and task aversiveness between government and private college students, but there is no significant difference in the sincerity and personal initiative between government and private college students.
Florida International University Accountability Plan, 2021
Author: State University System of Florida, Board of Governors
Date: 2021-06-23
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: State Universities,Accountability,Strategic Planning,Educational Finance,Educational Indicators,Research Universities,Improvement Programs,Enrollment,Educational Quality,Achievement,Graduation Rate,Institutional Characteristics,Outcomes of Education,Performance,Financial Support,Planning,Costs,Grade Point Average,Student Financial Aid,Doctoral Programs,Scores,Achievement Tests,Standardized Tests,Academic Persistence,Expenditures,College Freshmen,Time to Degree,Academic Degrees,Student Characteristics,Intellectual Disciplines,Certification,College Faculty,College Entrance Examinations

The Accountability Plan is an annual report that is closely aligned with the Board of Governors' 2025 System Strategic Plan. This report enhances the System's commitment to accountability and strategic planning by fostering greater coordination between institutional administrators, University Boards of Trustees and the Board of Governors regarding each institution's direction and priorities as well as performance expectations and outcomes on institutional and System-wide goals. Contents include: (1) Introduction; (2) Strategy; (3) Performance-Based Funding Metrics; (4) Preeminent Research University Funding Metrics; (5) Key Performance Indicators; (6) Enrollment Planning; (7) Academic Program Coordination; and (8) Definitions. [For &quot;Florida International University Accountability Plan, 2020. Revised,&quot; see ED610469.]
Florida State University Accountability Plan, 2021
Author: State University System of Florida, Board of Governors
Date: 2021-06-23
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: State Universities,Accountability,Educational Finance,Enrollment,Graduation Rate,Outcomes of Education,Strategic Planning,Educational Indicators,Educational Quality,Efficiency,Improvement Programs,Achievement,Institutional Characteristics,Undergraduate Students,Graduate Students,College Programs,STEM Education,Distance Education

The Accountability Plan is an annual report that is closely aligned with the Board of Governors' 2025 System Strategic Plan. This report enhances the State University System of Florida's commitment to accountability and strategic planning by fostering greater coordination between institutional administrators, University Boards of Trustees and the Board of Governors regarding each institution's direction and priorities as well as performance expectations and outcomes on institutional and System-wide goals. Contents include: (1) Introduction; (2) Strategy; (3) Performance-Based Funding Metrics; (4) Preeminent Research University Funding Metrics; (5) Key Performance Indicators; (6) Enrollment Planning; (7) Academic Program Coordination; and (8) Definitions. [For &quot;Florida State University Accountability Plan, 2020. Revised,&quot; see ED610453.]
Arkansas Division of Higher Education Operating Recommendations for State-Supported Institutions of Higher Education, 2021-23 Biennium
Author: Arkansas Division of Higher Education (ADHE)
Date: 2020-12-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: State Aid,Higher Education,Budgets,Funding Formulas,Productivity,Two Year Colleges,Educational Finance,Expenditures

A.C.A. §6-61-234 (Act 148 of 2017) directs the Arkansas Higher Education Coordinating Board (AHECB) to adopt polices developed by the Arkansas Division of Higher Education (ADHE) necessary to implement a productivity-based funding model for state-supported institutions of higher education. Productivity-based funding is a mechanism to align institutional funding with statewide priorities for higher education by incentivizing progress toward statewide goals. At the same time, such models encourage accountability to students and policymakers by focusing on the success of students through the achievement of their educational goals. At its October 27, 2017 meeting, the AHECB approved the productivity funding model policies for the two-year colleges and universities. The policies were developed in conjunction with presidents and chancellors after meetings and revisions. The AHECB shall use the productivity-based funding model as the mechanism for recommending funding for applicable state-supported institutions of higher education. Among this year's recommendations presented in this report: (1) For the universities, an increase in funding is recommended for those institutions with productivity increases for a total change in university funding of $8,376,594; (2) For the two-year colleges, an increase in funding is recommended for those institutions with productivity increases for a total change in two-year college funding of $2,884,237; (3) For the non-formula entities, the recommendation is for a 2.5% increase based on the HEPI index and a recommendation of full funding of Operations and Program Enhancement requests which combined would require an additional $21.8 million, of which $2.4 million would be for the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (UAMS); and (4) The total funding recommendation for 2021-22 for Colleges and Universities is $11,260,831 in new revenue with $3,546,645 of that being redistributed from one time incentive funds. The total recommendation for 2021-2022 for the Non-Formula Entities is $21,760,579 in new revenue. [For the 2020-21 Operating Recommendations, see ED613770.]
Reflecting Back and Looking Forward: Educational Equity in the Era of COVID-19. Policy and Practice Brief
Author: Choi, Linda
Date: 2021-04-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: COVID-19,Pandemics,Equal Education,School Closing,At Risk Students,Access to Education,Student Needs,Educational Quality,Distance Education,Educational Technology,Electronic Learning,School Districts,Intervention,Access to Computers,Learner Engagement,Family School Relationship,Mental Health,Attendance,Grades (Scholastic),Individualized Instruction,Online Courses,Educational Innovation

A year after school closures and transitions to remote instruction, early evidence suggests that the negative effects of the pandemic on student learning have been greatest among our most vulnerable student populations. Although districts were quick to provide meals and devices that addressed students' basic needs, disparities in opportunities to learn have persisted, and in many cases widened. To understand how districts have responded to educational inequities during the pandemic, the California Collaborative on District Reform's latest brief, &quot;Reflecting Back and Looking Forward: Educational Equity in the Era of COVID-19,&quot; describes three responses to educational challenges: providing access to safe and supportive learning environments, social-emotional supports, and high-quality instruction. These examples help to elevate lessons that may inform other districts as they seek to address disparities now and into the future.
Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University Accountability Plan, 2021
Author: State University System of Florida, Board of Governors
Date: 2021-06-23
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: State Universities,Accountability,Educational Finance,Enrollment,Graduation Rate,Outcomes of Education,Strategic Planning,Educational Indicators,Educational Quality,Efficiency,Improvement Programs,Achievement,Institutional Characteristics,Undergraduate Students,Graduate Students,College Programs,STEM Education,Distance Education

The Accountability Plan is an annual report that is closely aligned with the Board of Governors' 2025 System Strategic Plan. This report enhances the System's commitment to accountability and strategic planning by fostering greater coordination between institutional administrators, University Boards of Trustees and the Board of Governors regarding each institution's direction and priorities as well as performance expectations and outcomes on institutional and System-wide goals. Contents include: (1) Introduction; (2) Strategy; (3) Performance-Based Funding Metrics; (4) Key Performance Indicators; (5) Enrollment Planning; (6) Academic Program Coordination; and (7) Definitions. [For &quot;Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University Accountability Plan, 2020. Revised,&quot; see ED610472.]
Florida Atlantic University Accountability Plan, 2021. Revised
Author: State University System of Florida, Board of Governors
Date: 2021-06-23
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: State Universities,Accountability,Educational Finance,Enrollment,Graduation Rate,Outcomes of Education,Strategic Planning,Educational Indicators,Educational Quality,Efficiency,Improvement Programs,Achievement,Institutional Characteristics,Undergraduate Students,Graduate Students,College Programs,STEM Education,Distance Education

The Accountability Plan is an annual report that is closely aligned with the Board of Governors' 2025 System Strategic Plan. This report enhances the System's commitment to accountability and strategic planning by fostering greater coordination between institutional administrators, University Boards of Trustees and the Board of Governors regarding each institution's direction and priorities as well as performance expectations and outcomes on institutional and System-wide goals. Contents include: (1) Introduction; (2) Strategy; (3) Performance-Based Funding Metrics; (4) Key Performance Indicators; (5) Enrollment Planning; (6) Academic Program Coordination; and (7) Definitions. [For &quot;Florida Atlantic University Accountability Plan, 2020. Revised,&quot; see ED610473.]
Florida Polytechnic University Accountability Plan, 2021
Author: State University System of Florida, Board of Governors
Date: 2021-06-23
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: State Universities,Accountability,Educational Finance,Enrollment,Graduation Rate,Outcomes of Education,Strategic Planning,Educational Indicators,Educational Quality,Efficiency,Improvement Programs,Achievement,Institutional Characteristics,Undergraduate Students,Graduate Students,College Programs,STEM Education,Distance Education

The Accountability Plan is an annual report that is closely aligned with the Board of Governors' 2025 System Strategic Plan. This report enhances the State University System of Florida's commitment to accountability and strategic planning by fostering greater coordination between institutional administrators, University Boards of Trustees, and the Board of Governors regarding each institution's direction and priorities as well as performance expectations and outcomes on institutional and System-wide goals. Contents include: (1) Introduction; (2) Strategy; (3) Performance-Based Funding Metrics; (4) Key Performance Indicators; (5) Enrollment Planning; (6) Academic Program Coordination; and (7) Definitions. [For &quot;Florida Polytechnic University Accountability Plan, 2020,&quot; see ED610447.]
University of Florida Accountability Plan, 2021
Author: State University System of Florida, Board of Governors
Date: 2021-06-23
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: State Universities,Accountability,Educational Finance,Enrollment,Graduation Rate,Outcomes of Education,Strategic Planning,Educational Indicators,Educational Quality,Efficiency,Improvement Programs,Achievement,Institutional Characteristics,Undergraduate Students,Graduate Students,College Programs,STEM Education,Distance Education

The Accountability Plan is an annual report that is closely aligned with the Board of Governors' 2025 System Strategic Plan. This report enhances the System's commitment to accountability and strategic planning by fostering greater coordination between institutional administrators, University Boards of Trustees and the Board of Governors regarding each institution's direction and priorities as well as performance expectations and outcomes on institutional and System-wide goals. Contents include: (1) Introduction; (2) Strategy; (3) Performance-Based Funding Metrics; (4) Preeminent Research University Funding Metrics; (5) Key Performance Indicators; (6) Enrollment Planning; (7) Academic Program Coordination; and (8) Definitions. [For &quot;University of Florida Accountability Plan, 2020. Revised,&quot; see ED610455.]