ethanporcaro/eric-fulltext-meta huggingface dataset:
Superintendent Turnover in Kentucky. Summary. Issues &amp; Answers. REL 2011-No. 113
Author: Johnson, Jerry
Date: 2011-08-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: School Districts,Superintendents,Labor Turnover,Rural Schools,Rural Areas,Public Schools,Regional Characteristics,Elementary Secondary Education

This study examines superintendent turnover in Kentucky public school districts for 1998/99-2007/08, looking at how turnover varies by rural status, Appalachian and non-Appalachian region, and 2007/08 school district characteristics. Key findings include: (1) Kentucky school districts averaged one superintendent turnover during 1998/99-2007/08; (2) Average superintendent turnover rates in rural and nonrural school districts over 1998/99-2007/08 were within one-tenth of a point of each other; (3) Average superintendent turnover rates in Appalachian and non-Appalachian school districts over 1998/99-2007/08 were within one-tenth of a point of each other; (4) Statewide, superintendent turnover varied with school districts' demographic, fiscal, and achievement characteristics. However, the differences did not show patterns strong or consistent enough to suggest associations between these characteristics and superintendent turnover; and (5) In both rural and nonrural school districts and in both Appalachian and non-Appalachian school districts, superintendent turnover varied with demographic, fiscal, and achievement characteristics. However, the differences did not show patterns strong or consistent enough to suggest systematic differences between rural and nonrural school districts or between Appalachian and non- Appalachian school districts. [This report was prepared for the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) by Regional Educational Laboratory Appalachia administered by CNA Education. For the full report, &quot;Superintendent Turnover in Kentucky. Issues &amp; Answers. REL 2011-No. 113,&quot; see ED523101.]
Superintendent Turnover in Kentucky. Issues &amp; Answers. REL 2011-No. 113
Author: Johnson, Jerry
Date: 2011-08-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: School Districts,Superintendents,Labor Turnover,Rural Schools,Rural Areas,Regional Characteristics,Public Schools,Elementary Secondary Education,Accountability,Tenure,Enrollment

This study examines superintendent turnover in Kentucky public school districts for 1998/99-2007/08, looking at how turnover varies by rural status, Appalachian and non-Appalachian region, and 2007/08 school district characteristics. Key findings include: (1) Kentucky school districts averaged one superintendent turnover during 1998/99-2007/08; (2) Average superintendent turnover rates in rural and nonrural school districts over 1998/99-2007/08 were within one-tenth of a point of each other; (3) Average superintendent turnover rates in Appalachian and non-Appalachian school districts over 1998/99-2007/08 were within one-tenth of a point of each other; (4) Statewide, superintendent turnover varied with school districts' demographic, fiscal, and achievement characteristics. However, the differences did not show patterns strong or consistent enough to suggest associations between these characteristics and superintendent turnover; and (5) In both rural and nonrural school districts and in both Appalachian and non-Appalachian school districts, superintendent turnover varied with demographic, fiscal, and achievement characteristics. However, the differences did not show patterns strong or consistent enough to suggest systematic differences between rural and nonrural school districts or between Appalachian and non- Appalachian school districts. Data and Methodology are appended. (Contains 2 boxes, 2 maps, 1 figure, 9 tables and 2 notes.) [This report was prepared for the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) by Regional Educational Laboratory Appalachia administered by CNA Education. For &quot;Superintendent Turnover in Kentucky. Summary. Issues &amp; Answers. REL 2011-No. 113,&quot; see ED523100.]
The High Cost of Low Graduation Rates: How Much Does Dropping Out of College Really Cost?
Author: Schneider, Mark
Date: 2011-08-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Taxes,Income,Graduation Rate,Dropouts,Educational Attainment,College Graduates,Economics,Debt (Financial),Financial Problems

President Obama has set an ambitious goal for the nation: By the year 2020, the United States will have the highest proportion of adults with college degrees in the world. The Obama administration sees the successful completion of postsecondary education as essential to American competitiveness. Governors likewise see the economic future of their states as dependent on the development of a highly educated workforce that can compete with other states and other nations. There also are more immediate reasons for elected officials to want more college graduates. College graduates earn, on average, far more than college dropouts, and these higher earnings translate directly into higher income tax payments that can help solve growing fiscal problems at the federal and state levels. But colleges and universities are now graduating only slightly more than half the students who walk through their doors. Much of the cost of dropping out is borne by individual students, who may have accumulated large debts in their unsuccessful pursuit of a degree and who forfeit the higher earnings that accrue with a bachelor's degree. This report shows the high costs of low college graduation rates in terms of lost income and in lower tax receipts for federal and state governments. Appended are: (1) Annual State Income and Tax Losses for College Dropouts from the 2002 Entering Bachelor's Degree Cohort; and (2) Present Value of Lifetime State Income and Tax Losses for College Dropouts from the 2002 Entering Bachelor's Degree Cohort. (Contains 5 tables and 19 footnotes.)
Building Integrated Pathways to Sustainable Careers: An Introduction to the Accelerated Opportunity Initiative
Author: Pleasants, Rachel
Date: 2011-08-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Adult Basic Education,Postsecondary Education,Education Work Relationship,Integrated Curriculum,Sustainability,Educational Policy,Program Design,Program Evaluation,Program Implementation

&quot;Accelerating Opportunity&quot; responds to the nation's growing need for improved pathways from Adult Basic Education (ABE) to credentials of value in the labor market. It builds on promising practices developed in &quot;Breaking Through,&quot; an initiative of Jobs for the Future and the National Council for Workforce Education, and Washington State's Integrated Basic Education and Skills Training (I-BEST). &quot;Accelerating Opportunity&quot; will take those proven practices to statewide scale. The initiative consists of two phases: (1) The design phase began in March 2011. Eleven states (Alabama, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, and Wisconsin) have received funding to redesign the pathways between ABE and postsecondary education and training; (2) The three-year implementation phase begins at the end of the design phase, in December 2011. Five design phase states will be selected to receive three years of funding to implement &quot;Accelerating Opportunity&quot; pathways in at least eight colleges, with the goal of improving outcomes for at least 3,600 students per state. Non-funded states will be part of a growing affiliate network of states committed to developing integrated pathways for low-skilled adults. These states will continue to be active participants in peer learning events. This paper highlights the policy-based, systemic, and programmatic barriers to student success; and how &quot;Accelerating Opportunity&quot; is structured to address them, enabling many more adults to succeed in their quest for postsecondary credentials. Appended are: (1) The Leadership Team; and (2) For Further Reading. [Funding for this paper was also provided by the Open Society Foundations.]
Facilities Financing: Monetizing Education&apos;s Untapped Resource. Working Paper 2011-04
Author: Kothari, Himanshu
Date: 2011-08-08
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: Economic Climate,Economic Impact,Educational Finance,Elementary Secondary Education,Financial Support,Educational Facilities Improvement,Context Effect,Academic Achievement,Educational Equipment,Charter Schools,Cost Effectiveness

Like most everyone, schools have been forced to tighten their belts to survive in today's economic downturn. School leaders have been cutting budgets for afterschool activities, classroom equipment, and staff, all in an era of increasing academic expectations. It is little surprise, then, that facilities issues have been relegated to the bottom of the to-do list. However, the enormous costs and burdens of outmoded facilities arrangements represent an immense opportunity for the nation's school systems. In this paper, the author explores the causes of the nation's $300 billion funding shortfall in K-12 facilities and offers concrete recommendations to address this troubling trend. The author posits that public-private partnerships are a promising avenue for tapping the resources needed to address capital needs, but that current financial conditions in K-12 scare off potential investors. By overhauling facilities financing and exploring innovative approaches, policymakers can create the space for private investors to support school facilities. Helping schools better meet their facilities needs, the author argues, entails: (1) Holding educators and schools accountable for academic &quot;and&quot; financial performance; (2) Loosening regulations that limit the reach of charter schools and other nontraditional programs; and (3) Creating more opportunities for schools to take advantage of nontraditional financing options. Enacting such measures, the author asserts, will allow for a more stable and investor-friendly system for financing facilities. He explains, &quot;Once established, uniformity, liquidity, and stability can foster increased partnerships between public and private parties, bringing more resources into the sector and allowing educators more time to tend to their profession.&quot; (Contains 6 figures and 9 endnotes.)
Incentives for Early Graduation: How Can State Policies Encourage Students to Complete High School in Less than Four Years? Policy Brief
Author: Ward, Diane
Date: 2011-08-00
Type: Guides - Non-Classroom
Subjects: High Schools,Graduation Requirements,Rewards,Incentives,Acceleration (Education),Public Officials,Higher Education,Dual Enrollment,College Preparation,College Readiness,Educational Legislation,State Legislation,State Programs,Academic Achievement

In many states, high-achieving high school students have long had the ability to skip their senior year. Such policies enable motivated young people who fulfill graduation requirements to move on to college or a career--saving time and money for their families and society. A growing number of states are going further, with financial rewards for students who take a fast track to graduation and college. Strategies that seek more efficient use of taxpayer dollars by accelerating high school completion hold great appeal during challenging fiscal times. This brief provides guidance for state policymakers who seek savings through programs that will get more students to finish high school faster. This policy brief draws on Jobs for the Future's extensive work helping states develop and promote sound policies and practice that create stronger pathways from high school to and through college for low-income, minority, and first-generation students.
Grade Inflation for Education Majors and Low Standards for Teachers: When Everyone Makes the Grade. Education Outlook. No. 7
Author: Koedel, Cory
Date: 2011-08-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Education Majors,Schools of Education,Grade Inflation,Grading,Majors (Students),Academic Standards,College Faculty,Administrator Role

Students who take education classes at universities receive significantly higher grades than students who take classes in every other academic discipline. The higher grades cannot be explained by observable differences in student quality between education majors and other students, nor can they be explained by the fact that education classes are typically smaller than classes in other academic departments. The remaining reasonable explanation is that the higher grades in education classes are the result of low grading standards. These low grading standards likely will negatively affect the accumulation of skills for prospective teachers during university training. More generally, they contribute to a larger culture of low standards for educators. (Contains 3 figures and 14 notes.)
State Test Score Trends through 2008-09, Part 4: Is Achievement Improving and Are Gaps Narrowing for Title I Students? Missouri
Author: Center on Education Policy
Date: 2011-08-09
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: Achievement Gains,Academic Achievement,Achievement Gap,Achievement Rating,Disadvantaged Schools,Educational Trends,Educational Legislation,Elementary School Students,Educationally Disadvantaged,Educational Improvement,Educational Indicators,Federal Legislation,Grade 4,Grade 8,Grouping (Instructional Purposes),High School Students,High Schools,Mathematics Tests,Mathematics Achievement,Minority Group Children,Reading Achievement,Reading Tests,Scores,Secondary School Students,State Government,Statistical Data,Test Results,Time Perspective,Trend Analysis

This paper profiles Missouri's test score trends through 2008-09. In 2006, the mean scale score on the state 4th grade reading test was 661 for non-Title I students and 642 for Title I students. In 2009, the mean scale score in 4th grade reading was 661 for non-Title I students and 648 for Title I students. Between 2006 and 2009, there was no change in the mean scale score for non-Title I students and the score improved at an average yearly rate of 2.0 points for Title I students, indicating a narrowing of the achievement gap for Title I students at grade 4. In 2006, 53% of non-Title I 4th graders and 29% of Title I 4th graders scored at the proficient level on the state reading test. In 2006, 53% of non-Title I 4th graders and 35% of Title I 4th graders scored at the proficient level in reading. Between 2006 and 2009, the percentage proficient did not change for non-Title I students and improved by 2.0 percentage points per year for Title I students, indicating a narrowing of the achievement gap for Title I students at grade 4. [For the main report, &quot;State Test Score Trends through 2008-09, Part 4: Is Achievement Improving and Are Gaps Narrowing for Title I Students?,&quot; see ED522866.]
State Test Score Trends through 2008-09, Part 4: Is Achievement Improving and Are Gaps Narrowing for Title I Students? Washington
Author: Center on Education Policy
Date: 2011-08-09
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: Achievement Gains,Academic Achievement,Achievement Gap,Achievement Rating,Disadvantaged Schools,Educational Trends,Educational Legislation,Elementary School Students,Educationally Disadvantaged,Educational Improvement,Educational Indicators,Federal Legislation,Grade 4,Grade 8,Grouping (Instructional Purposes),High School Students,High Schools,Mathematics Tests,Mathematics Achievement,Minority Group Children,Reading Achievement,Reading Tests,Scores,Secondary School Students,State Government,Statistical Data,Test Results,Time Perspective,Trend Analysis

This paper profiles Washington's test score trends through 2008-09. Three years of comparable mean scale score data were not available from the state. In 2004, 77% of non-Title I 4th graders and 60% of Title I 4th graders scored at the proficient level on the state reading test. In 2009, 75% of non-Title I 4th graders and 61% of Title I 4th graders scored at the proficient level in reading. Between 2004 and 2009, the percentage proficient declined at an average rate of 0.4 percentage points per year for non-Title I students and improved at an average rate of 0.2 percentage points per year for Title I students, indicating a narrowing of the achievement gap for Title I students at grade 4. [For the main report, &quot;State Test Score Trends through 2008-09, Part 4: Is Achievement Improving and Are Gaps Narrowing for Title I Students?,&quot; see ED522866.]
State Test Score Trends through 2008-09, Part 4: Is Achievement Improving and Are Gaps Narrowing for Title I Students? Massachusetts
Author: Center on Education Policy
Date: 2011-08-09
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: Achievement Gains,Academic Achievement,Achievement Gap,Achievement Rating,Disadvantaged Schools,Educational Trends,Educational Legislation,Elementary School Students,Educationally Disadvantaged,Educational Improvement,Educational Indicators,Federal Legislation,Grade 4,Grade 8,Grouping (Instructional Purposes),High School Students,High Schools,Mathematics Tests,Mathematics Achievement,Minority Group Children,Reading Achievement,Reading Tests,Scores,Secondary School Students,State Government,Statistical Data,Test Results,Time Perspective,Trend Analysis

This paper profiles Massachusetts's test score trends through 2008-09. In 2006, 59% of non-Title I 4th graders and 29% of Title I 4th graders scored at the proficient level on the state reading test. In 2009, 64% of non-Title I 4th graders and 31% of Title I 4th graders scored at the proficient level in reading. Between 2006 and 2009, the percentage proficient improved at an average rate of 1.7 percentage points per year for non-Title I students and 0.7 percentage points per year for Title I students, indicating a widening of the achievement gap for Title I students at grade 4. [For the main report, &quot;State Test Score Trends through 2008-09, Part 4: Is Achievement Improving and Are Gaps Narrowing for Title I Students?,&quot; see ED522866.]
State Test Score Trends through 2008-09, Part 4: Is Achievement Improving and Are Gaps Narrowing for Title I Students? Rhode Island
Author: Center on Education Policy
Date: 2011-08-09
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: Achievement Gains,Academic Achievement,Achievement Gap,Achievement Rating,Disadvantaged Schools,Educational Trends,Educational Legislation,Elementary School Students,Educationally Disadvantaged,Educational Improvement,Educational Indicators,Federal Legislation,Grade 4,Grade 8,Grouping (Instructional Purposes),High School Students,High Schools,Mathematics Tests,Mathematics Achievement,Minority Group Children,Reading Achievement,Reading Tests,Scores,Secondary School Students,State Government,Statistical Data,Test Results,Time Perspective,Trend Analysis

This paper profiles Rhode Island's test score trends through 2008-09. In 2006, the mean scale score on the state 4th grade reading test was 445 for non-Title I students and 435 for Title I students. In 2009, the mean scale score in 4th grade reading was 448 for non-Title I students and 440 for Title I students. Between 2006 and 2009, the mean scale score improved at an average yearly rate of 1.0 points for non-Title I students and improved at an average yearly rate of 1.7 points for Title I students, indicating a narrowing of the achievement gap for Title I students at grade 4. In 2006, 72% of non-Title I 4th graders and 35% of Title I 4th graders scored at the proficient level on the state reading test. In 2009, 78% of non-Title I 4th graders and 52% of Title I 4th graders scored at the proficient level in reading. Between 2006 and 2009, the percentage proficient improved at an average rate of 2.0 percentage points per year for non-Title I students and 5.7 percentage points per year for Title I students, indicating a narrowing of the achievement gap for Title I students at grade 4. [For the main report, &quot;State Test Score Trends through 2008-09, Part 4: Is Achievement Improving and Are Gaps Narrowing for Title I Students?,&quot; see ED522866.]
State Test Score Trends through 2008-09, Part 4: Is Achievement Improving and Are Gaps Narrowing for Title I Students? Tennessee
Author: Center on Education Policy
Date: 2011-08-09
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: Achievement Gains,Academic Achievement,Achievement Gap,Achievement Rating,Disadvantaged Schools,Educational Trends,Educational Legislation,Elementary School Students,Educationally Disadvantaged,Educational Improvement,Educational Indicators,Federal Legislation,Grade 4,Grade 8,Grouping (Instructional Purposes),High School Students,High Schools,Mathematics Tests,Mathematics Achievement,Minority Group Children,Reading Achievement,Reading Tests,Scores,Secondary School Students,State Government,Statistical Data,Test Results,Time Perspective,Trend Analysis

This paper profiles Tennessee's test score trends through 2008-09. In 2004, the mean scale score on the state 4th grade reading test was 501 for non-Title I students and 486 for Title I students. In 2009, the mean scale score in 4th grade reading was 512 for non-Title I students and 495 for Title I students. Between 2004 and 2009, the mean scale score improved at an average yearly rate of 2.2 points for non-Title I students and improved at an average yearly rate of 1.8 points for Title I students, indicating a widening of the achievement gap for Title I students at grade 4. In 2004, 87% of non-Title I 4th graders and 77% of Title I 4th graders scored at the proficient level on the state reading test. In 2009, 95% of non-Title I 4th graders and 88% of Title I 4th graders scored at the proficient level in reading. Between 2004 and 2009, the percentage proficient improved at an average rate of 1.6 percentage points per year for non-Title I students and 2.2 percentage points per year for Title I students, indicating a narrowing of the achievement gap for Title I students at grade 4. [For the main report, &quot;State Test Score Trends through 2008-09, Part 4: Is Achievement Improving and Are Gaps Narrowing for Title I Students?,&quot; see ED522866.]
State Test Score Trends through 2008-09, Part 4: Is Achievement Improving and Are Gaps Narrowing for Title I Students? Utah
Author: Center on Education Policy
Date: 2011-08-09
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: Achievement Gains,Academic Achievement,Achievement Gap,Achievement Rating,Disadvantaged Schools,Educational Trends,Educational Legislation,Elementary School Students,Educationally Disadvantaged,Educational Improvement,Educational Indicators,Federal Legislation,Grade 4,Grade 8,Grouping (Instructional Purposes),High School Students,High Schools,Mathematics Tests,Mathematics Achievement,Minority Group Children,Reading Achievement,Reading Tests,Scores,Secondary School Students,State Government,Statistical Data,Test Results,Time Perspective,Trend Analysis

This paper profiles Utah's test score trends through 2008-09. In 2004, the mean scale score on the state 4th grade reading test was 167 for non-Title I students and 164 for Title I students. In 2009 the mean scale score in 4th grade reading was 168 for non-Title I students and 164 for Title I students. Between 2004 and 2009, the mean scale score declined at an average yearly rate of 0.2 points for non-Title I students and showed no change for Title I students, indicating a widening of the achievement gap for Title I students at grade 4. In 2004, 79% of non-Title I 4th graders and 70% of Title I 4th graders scored at the proficient level on the state reading test. In 2009, 81% of non-Title I 4th graders and 70% of Title I 4th graders scored at the proficient level in reading. Between 2004 and 2009,  proficient improved at an average rate of 0.4 percentage points per year for non-Title I students and showed no change for Title I students, indicating a widening of the achievement gap for Title I students at grade 4.[For the main report, &quot;State Test Score Trends through 2008-09, Part 4: Is Achievement Improving and Are Gaps Narrowing for Title I Students?,&quot; see ED522866.]