ethanporcaro/eric-fulltext-meta huggingface dataset:
A Hunger for Information: California&apos;s Options to Meet Its Statewide Education Data Needs. California Education Policy, Student Data, and the Quest to Improve Student Progress, Part IV. Policy Brief
Author: Moore, Colleen
Date: 2018-06-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: Information Needs,Longitudinal Studies,Educational Policy,Educational Improvement,Data Analysis,Information Systems,Educational Practices,Academic Achievement,Student Records,Decision Making,Costs,Information Security,Data Collection,Governance,Statewide Planning,Outcomes of Education,State Legislation,Sustainability

California's education data, at least as they currently are collected, managed, and made available, are not sufficient for understanding and addressing the needs of California's students. That's the conclusion of the first three reports in the series &quot;California Education Policy, Student Data, and the Quest to Improve Student Progress,&quot; which seeks to shed light on the role and potential of student-level data systems in California (see &quot;About This Series&quot;). This fourth report finds that California lags behind many states that have already developed valuable ways to use cross-sector statewide longitudinal data systems (SLDSs) to improve policy and practice and to provide critical information to policymakers, educators, taxpayers, and students and their families. Fortunately, California has a range of options for developing an SLDS; there are numerous examples in other states that illustrate the possibilities. These data systems use a variety of structures and processes to link and manage student data across education systems to gain valuable information for improving policy and practice. [For Part I of this series, see ED574475; for Part II, see ED584700; and for Part III, see ED584699.]
Scaling Goodwill: The Challenges of Implementing Robust Education Data Sharing through Regional Partnerships. California Education Policy, Student Data, and the Quest to Improve Student Progress, Part III. Policy Brief
Author: Moore, Colleen
Date: 2018-01-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: Partnerships in Education,Educational Policy,Instructional Improvement,Student Records,Interviews,Track System (Education),Data Collection,Progress Monitoring,School Districts,Elementary Secondary Education,Higher Education,State Policy,Access to Information,Cooperation,Stakeholders,Shared Resources and Services,Outcomes of Education

In the first of this four-part series of policy briefs on student data in California, we noted a disconnect in the views of state policy staff and local educators on the need for a statewide longitudinal student data system (see &quot;About This Series&quot;). The local educators we interviewed expressed a readiness to participate in a state data system to gather and track information about student progress in and across schools and colleges. State officials were not convinced that gathering and sharing this information should be a top priority for a variety of reasons, including the challenges of overcoming the politics of gaining agreement across systems and the expense of performing the work and sustaining it over time. In our second brief, we reported that California already collects an expansive set of data about the students in each of its education systems, but that those data are maintained in a maze of separate systems. We identified concerns about the incompleteness and inefficiency of third party data-sharing efforts statewide. We also reported that, given the disconnected data systems and lack of a centralized entity that makes it possible to access, share, and use student data from these different sources, California and its public schools and colleges cannot answer basic questions about student outcomes across institutions. [For Part I of this series, see ED574475; for Part II, see ED584700; and for Part IV, see ED584698.]
California&apos;s Maze of Student Information: Education Data Systems Leave Critical Questions Unanswered. California Education Policy, Student Data, and the Quest to Improve Student Progress, Part II. Policy Brief
Author: Moore, Colleen
Date: 2017-08-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: Student Records,Data Collection,Progress Monitoring,College Students,Public Colleges,Universities,Enrollment,Enrollment Trends,Eligibility,College Transfer Students,Outcomes of Education,Educational Attainment,Costs

California collects expansive sets of data about students in its public K-12 and higher education systems--data that, collectively, have great potential to meet the information needs of state policymakers, local educators, and other stakeholders. But the data are collected and maintained in systems that are not connected, were designed for different purposes, are subject to different regulations, and often use different data definitions. As a result of these disconnects, important information about student progress is often impossible to access, share, and use--whether at the state, regional, or local level. While there may be a few benefits to the current structure, they are outweighed by major disadvantages, including inefficient use of taxpayer dollars. A significant weakness is that California's current approach leaves the state and its institutions unable to answer important questions about student progress and outcomes, such as: (1) With California's public universities straining to meet student demand for enrollment, how many students meet current eligibility requirements, but do not apply? What are their educational outcomes?; (2) How many students attend multiple colleges or universities in various regions of the state during their college careers? How does this affect their educational trajectories and chances of college completion?; and (3) California is investing millions of dollars in strengthening educational pathways from high school into college. Which programs are most effective, and for which students? [For Part I of this series, see ED574475; for Part III, see ED584699; and for Part IV, see ED584698.]
Dignity for All? Discrimination against Transgender and Gender Nonconforming Students in New York State
Author: Frederico, Lauren
Date: 2015-06-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Educational Environment,Sexual Orientation,Sexual Identity,State Legislation,Civil Rights,Student Experience,Public Schools,Compliance (Legal),Federal Legislation,School Culture,Social Bias,Social Discrimination,Bullying,Sex Stereotypes,Sanitary Facilities,Physical Education

This report explores school climate for transgender and gender nonconforming youth in New York State since the passage of the Dignity Act. Telling the stories of real New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) clients, it documents the experiences of students facing discrimination. In some of these cases, the NYCLU was able to work with students to address problems at school; in others, they continue to fight. This report also provides recommendations to New York public schools on how to both comply with state and federal law and create a school climate that nurtures and respects all of New York's children. [This report was written with and edited by Ujala Sehgal. The report was additionally edited by Jennifer Carnig, Johanna Miller, Erin Harrist, Bobby Hodgson and Donna Lieberman. Notes are included.]
Birds, Bees and Bias: How Absent Sex Ed Standards Fail New York&apos;s Students
Author: Goodman, Melissa
Date: 2012-09-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: Sex Education,Standards,Health Education,Sexuality,Sexual Orientation,Homosexuality,Sexual Identity,Sex Role,Rape,Sexual Abuse,Bullying,Sexual Harassment,State Departments of Education,School Districts,Sexually Transmitted Diseases,Contraception,Adolescents,Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS),Sex Stereotypes,Disease Control,Pregnancy,Dating (Social),Violence,Internet,Safety,Public Schools,Marriage,Risk,Middle School Students,High School Students,Prevention

Many public school districts across New York State provide sex-ed instruction that is inaccurate, incomplete and biased. This report examines sex-ed materials used during the 2009-2010 and 2010-11 school years from across New York State. Among the New York Civil Liberties Union's (NYCLU's) key findings: (1) Lessons on reproductive anatomy and basic functions were often inaccurate and incomplete; pervasive factual limitations reflected gender stereotypes and heterocentric bias; (2) Moral overtones and shame-based messages regarding sexuality, abstinence, pregnancy and teen parenting strongly pervade instructional materials in all districts--and textbooks in wide use across New York State; (3) Many students do not learn the full range of methods for preventing pregnancy or sexually transmitted infections. Too few school districts provide students with information about how to access local health resources or their right to confidential reproductive and sexual health care; (4) Most districts did not teach information about bullying (63 percent), and many did not teach about sexual harassment (42 percent), sexual assault or rape (28 percent); (5) Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and questioning (LGBTQ) students are largely stigmatized or ignored entirely in health education classrooms; and (6) Persistent heterocentric bias dominates instruction about dating, relationships, marriage, sexuality, and vulnerability to sexual assault and dating violence. Among its recommendations, the NYCLU calls on the State Education Department to amend the Commissioner's Regulations on health education to require comprehensive sexuality education in the public schools--or set rigorous, binding standards for voluntary sex-education curricula--to ensure that young people have the foundation, skills and knowledge to support a healthy and productive future.
Using Effect Size to Evaluate Achievement Gaps. Research Brief
Author: Stevens, Joseph
Date: 2018-00-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: Effect Size,Achievement Gap,Measurement Techniques,Computation,Academic Achievement,Standardized Tests,Achievement Gains

This research brief provides an overview of methods for estimating the size of achievement gaps. Unfortunately many researchers, analysts, and policy-makers use subjective methods (e.g., visual inspection) to evaluate group differences. Another common method is to take the difference between groups in percent proficient, but there are a number of shortcomings to this approach. A more objective and well tested method to compare groups is effect size (ES). I define ES and demonstrate its computation in several situations including between-group comparisons and within-group change over time. I also discuss newer methods that are appropriate for categorical and ordinal data, methods that examine group differences across the whole score distribution, and tools for visualizing achievement gaps.
Searching for Measures of College and Career Readiness: The Perspectives of Students, Teachers, Administrators, and State and County Officials
Author: Koppich, Julia
Date: 2017-10-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: Measurement,Educational Indicators,College Readiness,Career Readiness,Student Attitudes,Teacher Attitudes,Administrator Attitudes,State Officials,Counties,Public Officials,State Boards of Education,Accountability,Secondary School Teachers,Community Colleges,College Faculty,High School Students,Two Year College Students,Qualitative Research,Program Implementation,Educational Policy,State Policy,Interviews,Focus Groups

Over the next three years, the California State Board of Education (SBE) and the California Department of Education (CDE) will refine the college and career readiness (CCR) measures in the state's school accountability system. Determining which measures to use, given that they need to be robust, useful, equitable, and cost effective--and effectively measure a complex set of factors--has proven to be a challenging process for these state agencies to date. To inform their work, this report captures how state and county officials, high school teachers, community college instructors, CCR program administrators, high school students, and community college students view California's current CCR measures. It focuses particularly on what teachers and students think makes certain CCR programs successful, based on their experiences. The study answers two questions: (1) How do officials from the state and county offices of education view CCR programs and the state's College/Career Indicator (CCI)?; and (2) What are students', teachers', and administrators ' perspectives on CCR programs? While this qualitative study reflects only the views of a small number of stakeholders, their ideas and concerns warrant consideration by policymakers. This report finds that students, teachers and local administrators embrace California's commitment to college and career readiness (CCR), but have deep concerns about implementation. [This report received research support from Laura Tobben and Stacey Sural.]
&quot;Get Me from Point A to Point B:&quot; Student Perspectives on Barriers to Timely Graduation at the California State University
Author: Moore, Colleen
Date: 2018-02-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: Student Attitudes,College Students,Time to Degree,Focus Groups,Student Surveys,College Transfer Students,Community Colleges,State Universities,Student Characteristics,Institutional Characteristics,Networks,College Faculty,Teacher Student Relationship,Peer Relationship,Student Needs,Educational Finance,Scheduling,Required Courses,Barriers

The primary goal of the California State University's (CSU) Graduation Initiative 2025 (GI 2025) is to reduce time to degree. The results of a survey and focus groups involving students at three CSU campuses, undertaken by the Education Insights Center (EdInsights) on behalf of the CSU Student Success Network, indicate that this goal is consistent with students' aspirations. Most students enroll in the CSU intending to graduate in a traditional timeframe--four years for students enrolling as freshmen and two years for those transferring from a community college. According to survey results, 85 percent of those who enrolled as first-time freshmen intended to graduate &quot;on time&quot;--within four years. Among transfer students, 70 percent enrolled in the CSU planning to graduate in two years. Nearly all students enter the California State University system intending to graduate &quot;on time,&quot; and graduation rates are increasing systemwide. Currently, less than a quarter of incoming freshmen graduate within four years and a third of community college transfer students graduate in two years. This study investigates the personal and institutional obstacles that students experience as they navigate through college on the pathway to timely graduation.
School Leadership: A Primer for Policymakers. Special Report
Author: Scott, Deven
Date: 2018-06-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Instructional Leadership,Principals,Administrator Role,Leadership Responsibility,Standards,State Policy,Recruitment,Labor Turnover,Administrator Education,Certification,Mentors,Professional Development,Administrator Evaluation

Strong leadership is invaluable to any organization. Effective leaders recruit and develop talent, promote organizational growth, influence change and create positive culture. Extensive research shows this holds true in the nation's schools. Teachers identify principal leadership as one of the most important determinants--more than compensation--in their decisions to stay in a school or the profession. Even more telling, school leadership is found to have one of the greatest influences on student outcomes--second only to classroom instruction--among school-level factors. Effective principals and other school leaders are critical for fostering strong working and learning environments for teachers and their students. This special report serves as an introduction to policies related to school leadership--which is particularly useful to newly elected or appointed officials as they consider policies to more effectively support great school leaders.
Revenues and Expenditures for Public Elementary and Secondary School Districts: School Year 2014-15 (Fiscal Year 2015). First Look. NCES 2018-303
Author: Cornman, Stephen Q.
Date: 2018-06-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: Public Schools,Elementary Secondary Education,Income,Expenditures,School Districts,Expenditure per Student,Geographic Location,Federal Aid,State Aid,Local Government,Poverty,Surveys,Tables (Data),Taxes

This First Look report presents data on public elementary and secondary education revenues and expenditures at the local education agency (LEA) or school district level for fiscal year (FY) 2015.1 Specifically, this report includes findings for the following types of school district finance data: (1) Current expenditure totals and current expenditure per pupil amounts by state and for the 100 largest LEAs; (2) Federal, state, and local revenues for the 100 largest LEAs; (3) Median revenues per pupil and median current expenditures per pupil by geographic region and locale; (4) Current expenditure totals and current expenditure per pupil amounts by function and object, by state and for the two largest LEAs in each state; (5) Federal revenues by program and local revenues by source, by state; (6) Revenues per pupil by poverty quartile and state; and (7) Capital outlay expenditures by state. The source for the data and findings included in this report is the FY 15 School District Finance Survey (F-33) provisional data file (version 1a). Provisional F-33 data have been subject to at least two rounds of extensive data review and editing. NCES releases provisional data in an effort to provide earlier access to the data. Revisions submitted after the provisional data file has been completed and released are incorporated in the final file for each respective fiscal year. The final files are released at the same time provisional data are released for the following year. The purpose of this First Look report is to introduce new data through the presentation of tables containing descriptive information. The selected findings chosen for this report demonstrate the range of information available when using F-33 data files.
Personalized Learning at a Crossroads: Early Lessons from the Next Generation Systems Initiative and the Regional Funds for Breakthrough Schools Initiative
Author: Gross, Betheny
Date: 2018-06-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: Individualized Instruction,Program Implementation,Sustainability,Instructional Improvement,Educational Practices,Educational Needs,Leaders Guides,Educational Policy,Instructional Innovation,Instructional Effectiveness,Teacher Leadership,Alignment (Education),Fidelity,Teacher Collaboration,School Support,Change Strategies,Partnerships in Education,School Effectiveness,Elementary Secondary Education,Interviews

The Center for Reinventing Public Education (CRPE) conducted a multiyear, multimethod effort to learn how school districts, charter schools, and regional partners can support the successful implementation, expansion, and sustainability of personalized learning (PL) in schools. The vision for PL is to tailor instruction to individual students' strengths, needs, and personal interests--often integrating technology--to boost student outcomes. CRPE researchers used a combination of field studies, surveys, and secondary data analysis to explore how schools, districts, and partner organizations help to seed and grow PL, and what the results were. Key questions for the project included: What do principals, teachers, and system leaders need to know and be able to do to successfully support, implement, and scale up PL; What policies and practices--at the classroom, school, district, partnership, and state levels--offered important supports (and barriers) for successfully implementing and scaling up PL; and What were the early results for teachers and students?
Is School Funding Fair? A National Report Card. Sixth Edition
Author: Baker, Bruce
Date: 2017-01-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: Educational Finance,Educational Equity (Finance),Financial Support,State Aid,Public Education,Elementary Secondary Education,Resource Allocation,Poverty,Early Childhood Education,Teacher Salaries,Teacher Student Ratio

The National Report Card (NRC) evaluates and compares the extent to which state finance systems ensure equality of educational opportunity for all children, regardless of background, family income, place of residence, or school location. It is designed to provide policymakers, educators, business leaders, parents, and the public at large with information to better understand the fairness of existing state school finance systems and how resources are allocated so problems can be identified and solutions developed. The NRC is unique among comparative school funding reports because it goes beyond simple per pupil calculations. To capture the complex differences among states, the NRC constructs four interrelated fairness measures--Funding Level, Funding Distribution, Effort and Coverage--that allow for comparisons that control for regional differences. [For the fifth edition, see ED570361.]
Is School Funding Fair? A National Report Card. Seventh Edition
Author: Baker, Bruce
Date: 2018-02-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: Educational Finance,Educational Equity (Finance),Financial Support,State Aid,Public Education,Elementary Secondary Education,Resource Allocation,Poverty,Early Childhood Education,Teacher Salaries,Teacher Student Ratio

&quot;Is School Funding Fair? A National Report Card&quot; analyzes the condition of state school finance systems with a focus on the fair distribution of resources to the neediest students. The Report Card makes a number of assumptions about how school funding systems should be designed: (1) a fair funding system should provide levels of funding based on student need; (2) student poverty is the most critical variable affecting funding levels and can serve as a proxy for other measures of disadvantage, such as racial segregation, limited English proficiency, and student mobility; (3) fair funding systems are designed &quot;progressively&quot; so that funding increases relative to student poverty; and (4) a sufficient overall level of funding is a crucial starting point for any funding formula to be successful. The Seventh Edition of the Report Card examines the fiscal condition of the nation's schools using data from 2015. This edition of the National Report Card, like its precursors, demonstrates that school funding remains stubbornly unfair in most states. As a result, states have failed to create finance systems that support improved student outcomes, especially among the nation's low-income students. [For the sixth edition, see ED584732.]