ethanporcaro/eric-fulltext-meta huggingface dataset:
School Attendance Patterns in Iowa: Chronic Absence in the Early Grades
Author: Child and Family Policy Center
Date: 2016-04-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: Attendance Patterns,Young Children,Early Childhood Education,Elementary School Students,Primary Education,At Risk Students,Kindergarten,Grade 1,Grade 2,Grade 3,Minority Group Students,Low Income Groups,Special Education,English Language Learners,Gender Differences

Research points to the critical importance of helping young children get into the habit of attending school every day. Good attendance in the early years is strongly correlated with reading proficiently by the end of third grade, graduating from high school on time, and success in adulthood. Chronic absence is an early-warning sign that intervention may be needed to ensure a child is on a path to success. Using data from the Iowa Department of Education on over 37,000 students, the Child and Family Policy Center has analyzed the prevalence of chronic absence among Iowa early-elementary students (K-3). The data show that a small but significant group of early-elementary students in Iowa is missing substantial amounts of school, and many of those students are facing other challenges in their academic and home lives. Key findings include: (1) Chronic absence rates were highest in kindergarten, then improved through third grade; (2) One-third of Iowa districts and nearly 40 percent of elementary schools have rates of chronic absence among kindergartners in excess of 10 percent; (3) Average daily attendance masks significant differences in rates of chronic absence among Iowa districts. Average daily attendance rates of 95 percent among kindergartners translated to chronic absence rates from 5 percent to over 18 percent; (4) Patterns of attendance established in kindergarten, coming to school regularly or not, are likely to continue in subsequent grades; (5) Iowa students who are chronically absent are over one and a half times less likely to be proficient in reading by third grade; (6) Chronic absence is more pronounced among racial and ethnic minority groups who experience constrained opportunity even before birth; (7) Low-income students were three to four times more likely than their peers to be chronically absent across all four school years documented in this report; (8) Students receiving special education services were two to three times more likely to be chronically absent than their peers; (9) English Language Learners were more likely to be chronically absent in the earliest years, but the gap virtually disappears by third grade; and (10) Boys and girls in Iowa are chronically absent in the early-elementary years at very similar rates. Sidebars present strategies for reducing chronic absence and five protective factors.
Starting Now: A Policy Vision for Supporting the Healthy Growth and Development of Every California Baby
Author: Bell, Adrienne
Date: 2017-02-03
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Children,At Risk Persons,Child Health,Poverty,Minority Group Children,Foster Care,Home Visits,Child Care,Access to Education,Access to Health Care,Infants,Toddlers,Family Programs,Family Environment,Early Childhood Education,Community Development,Educational Quality,Mothers

Too often in California, children (especially children of color, foster youth, and those growing up in poverty) lack the components critical for a healthy early life. For example, as few as 3% of families that might benefit from voluntary home visiting have access to home visiting programs, 32% of children entering foster care are under the age of three, and only 9% of eligible infants and toddlers have subsidized child care. Investments that support children during early childhood are an essential long-term investment in California's future. The chapters in this report include: (1) Introduction; (2) A Data Snapshot: California's Infants and Toddlers (child care, maternal demographics, and health and welfare); (3) Promote Healthy Children; (4) Foster Strong Families; (5) Enrich Early Learning; (6) Strengthen Communities; (6) Building Effective, Quality Systems; and (7) Conclusion.
Guide to Creating Teacher Leader Positions. White Paper
Author: Heneman, Herbert G., III
Date: 2016-10-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Teacher Leadership,Guidelines,Administrative Principles,Instructional Improvement,Task Analysis,Leadership Role,Administrator Guides,Occupational Information,Change Strategies,School Districts,Elementary Secondary Education,Selection Criteria,Teacher Selection

The past several years have seen a growing interest in, and adoption of, Teacher Leader (TL) programs throughout the country and among TIF 4 grantees. Often, these programs have been embedded within large- scale career ladder compensation systems. Several recent writings describe this recent growth surge, design issues in the creation of a total TL program, and examples of TL programs. In this Guide, we focus on creating individual TL positions, not on creating a TL program as a whole. We assume that a decision has already been made to create TLs and that the task is to determine the specifics of the TL roles. The individual TL position is the foundation and building block of a TL program. Without effective creation of TL positions, there cannot be effective TL programs. So this guide could also be used as part of a larger evaluation of a TL program and its positions. Creation of a TL position revolves around several decisions, starting with making choices about the district's instructional improvement strategies. From this flow decisions about major instructional tasks and subtasks to support the strategy, assignment of the tasks and subtasks to the TL position and other positions, description of the new TL position, allocation of hours to the position, staffing and training for the TL position, and elements of the TL appointment.
Teacher Turnover: Does It Matter for Pupil Achievement? CEP Discussion Paper No. 1530
Author: Gibbons, Stephen
Date: 2018-02-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: Faculty Mobility,Academic Achievement,Secondary School Students,Institutional Characteristics,Regression (Statistics),Trend Analysis,Beginning Teachers,Experienced Teachers,Student Characteristics,Effect Size,School Statistics,Foreign Countries

Recent research has established that teachers matter for student achievements, albeit because of dimensions of 'teacher quality' that are largely unexplained. A less closely investigated issue is whether teacher turnover directly harms student academic achievement. In this paper, we examine whether teacher turnover affects academic achievement of 16 year old state secondary school students using a unique data set of linked students and teachers in England. Identification comes from either: a school fixed effects design which exploits year-on-year variation in turnover in different subject groups, within schools; or student fixed effect design that where the variation comes from the cross sectional variation in turnover in different subjects, in the same school, experienced by a student. Both methods give similar results, suggesting that a higher teacher entry rate reduces students' test scores, albeit by small amounts.
Report for the Student Quality Assurance Impact Research Project: California State University, Bakersfield, Summer 2016-Spring 2017
Author: Wang, Jianjun
Date: 2017-10-10
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: State Universities,Quality Assurance,College Students,Teacher Education,Accreditation (Institutions),Faculty Development,Online Courses,Educational Technology,Technology Uses in Education,Student Surveys,College Faculty,Summer Programs,Grade Point Average,Student Characteristics,Gender Differences,Racial Differences,Ethnicity,Socioeconomic Status,Remedial Instruction,Statistical Analysis

As the largest higher education system across the nation, California State University (CSU) has been championing advancements in instructional technology and teaching innovations across face-to-face, interactive television, hybrid, and online platforms. This report focuses on needs pertinent to the southern San Joaquin Valley and Antelope Valley. Thus, the report begins with an &quot;Introduction&quot; section describing the service region of CSU, Bakersfield (CSUB) in support of the Quality Assurance (QA) training for instructors and course certification for the institution. Recent CSUB initiatives are addressed in the &quot;Campus QA Background&quot; section to examine indicators of the ongoing capacity building in Academic Year (AY) 2016-17. In addition, &quot;QA Professional Development&quot; results are articulated with an overview of course certification status to facilitate analyses of student learning outcomes. Furthermore, contextual information is incorporated from the institutional research office to assess the impact of online and hybrid course offerings on students from diversified demographic backgrounds. The university transcript records are extracted to confirm the comparison of student performance in online, hybrid, and other course settings. Survey data are analyzed from 103 students who enrolled in online and/or hybrid courses taught by 10 instructors in AY 2016-17. The report concludes with recommendations for sustaining ongoing progress of the SQuAIR project at CSUB and beyond. [This report is an update of the report submitted to the Chancellor's Office of California State University on August 26, 2017.]
The End of Free College in England: Implications for Quality, Enrolments and Equity. CEP Discussion Paper No. 1501, Revised February 2018 (Replaces October 2017 Version)
Author: Murphy, Richard
Date: 2018-02-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: Foreign Countries,Paying for College,Student Costs,Tuition,Fees,Educational Quality,Enrollment Management,Equal Education,Enrollment Rate,Educational Policy,Policy Analysis,Barriers,Family Income,Age Differences,Census Figures,School Statistics,Debt (Financial),Loan Repayment,Incidence,Finance Reform,Funding Formulas,Federal Aid,Educational Finance,Statistical Analysis

Despite increasing financial pressures on higher education systems throughout the world, many governments remain resolutely opposed to the introduction of tuition fees, and some countries and states where tuition fees have been long established are now reconsidering free higher education. This paper examines the consequences of charging tuition fees on university quality, enrolments, and equity. To do so, we study the English higher education system which has, in just two decades, moved from a free college system to one in which tuition fees are among the highest in the world. Our findings suggest that England's shift has resulted in increased funding per head, rising enrolments, and a narrowing of the participation gap between advantaged and disadvantaged students. In contrast to other systems with high tuition fees, the English system is distinct in that its income-contingent loan system keeps university free at the point of entry, and provides students with comparatively generous assistance for living expenses. We conclude that tuition fees, at least in the English case supported their goals of increasing quality, quantity, and equity in higher education
Developmental Screening Activities in Early Learning Challenge States. State TA Resources
Author: Early Learning Challenge Technical Assistance (ELC TA)
Date: 2017-06-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Screening Tests,Developmental Disabilities,Faculty Development,Staff Development,State Legislation,State Regulation,Licensing Examinations (Professions),Agency Cooperation,Access to Information,Information Networks,Referral,Advertising,State Standards,Quality Control,Early Childhood Education,Educational Resources,Educational Legislation,Federal Aid,Federal Legislation,Federal Programs,State Programs

This resource was prepared in response to a request for examples of developmental screening activities in Early Learning Challenge (ELC) States. This information will be helpful to States as they consider how to identify and address health, behavioral, and developmental needs of children with high needs. To address this request, ELC TA reviewed the &quot;2015 Progress Update Report&quot; for the 20 Phase 1, 2 and 3 ELC States and the &quot;2016 Annual Performance Report&quot; (APR) data from the Phase 2 and Phase 3 ELC States and the &quot;2016 Final Performance Report&quot; (FPR) data from the Phase 1 ELC States. These reports were submitted to the Departments of Education and Health and Human Services for review in the spring of 2017. Of the 20 ELC States, eight States (California, Delaware, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon, and Vermont) chose to address developmental screening as part of their overall State plan and reported on performance measure (C)(3)(d): &quot;Leveraging Existing Resources (other than RTT-ELC funds&quot;) to Increase the Number of Children with High Needs who are Screened Using Developmental and Behavioral Screening Measures.&quot; Eight additional ELC States (Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin) included information in their annual and final reports on their efforts to support developmental screening even though they did not specifically address performance measure (C)(3)(d) in their grant applications. This summary includes information about States' developmental screening activities in the following areas: professional development and staffing, legislation and licensing regulations, collaboration, data linkages electronic access to screenings and screening data, screening tools, referrals, marketing, and State Quality Rating and Improvement System (QRIS) components.
Coordination of Monitoring Systems for Early Care and Education. State TA Resources
Author: Early Learning Challenge Technical Assistance (ELC TA)
Date: 2017-01-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Child Care,Early Childhood Education,Evaluation,Coordination,Objectives,Standards,State Programs,Planning,Educational Legislation,Federal Aid,Federal Legislation,Federal Programs

This resource was prepared in response to a request from a Race to the Top -- Early Learning Challenge (RTT-ELC) State for a high-level summary of the March 2016 research brief, &quot;Coordinated Monitoring Systems for Early Care and Education&quot; (see ED583970), prepared by Child Trends for the Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation (OPRE), Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. This resource highlights the main points of the research brief and lists additional resources related to coordinating monitoring systems.
How Phase 3 Early Learning Challenge States Are Leveraging ELC Funds and Other Funds to Support Inclusion. State TA Resources
Author: Early Learning Challenge Technical Assistance (ELC TA)
Date: 2017-07-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: State Aid,Funding Formulas,Special Needs Students,Related Services (Special Education),Early Childhood Education,Educational Quality,Grants,Coordinators,Disabilities,Achievement Rating,Educational Improvement,State Programs,Progress Monitoring,Agency Cooperation,Educational Practices,Administrator Attitudes,Evaluation Methods,Educational Legislation,Federal Aid,Federal Legislation,Federal Programs

This resource was prepared in response to a request for information about how the six Phase 3 ELC States (Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Vermont) are leveraging ELC funds and other State funds to support inclusion. This information will be helpful to other States as they consider how to continue to increase the quality of early learning for children with special needs. To address this request, ELC TA contacted the ELC grant coordinators for the six Phase 3 States in June 2017, and asked them to address the five questions: (1) Does your Quality Rating and Improvement System (QRIS) specifically address the inclusion of children with disabilities? (2) Did your State implement any new programs or projects with the ELC grant that were focused on improving or increasing the inclusion of children with disabilities into other early childhood programs? (3) Is your State able to track how children with disabilities are doing in your State? (4) Have you seen a new level of collaboration among agencies serving young children and those serving children with disabilities as a result of the ECL grant? and (5) Is there anything else you would like to share with us? Their responses are discussed herein.
Supports for Family, Friend, and Neighbor Child Care Providers in Early Learning Challenge States. State TA Resources
Author: Early Learning Challenge Technical Assistance (ELC TA)
Date: 2017-11-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Child Care Centers,Early Childhood Education,Annual Reports,Family Programs,State Action,State Programs,Educational Resources,Educational Legislation,Federal Aid,Federal Legislation,Federal Programs

This resource was prepared for an Early Learning Challenge (ELC) State in response to a request for information about initiatives to improve the quality of child care and early education provided by family, friends, and neighbors in the 20 RTT-ELC States. This information will be helpful to other States as they consider how to continue to increase the quality of early learning for all children. To address this request, ELC TA reviewed &quot;2016 Annual Performance Report&quot; (APR) data from the Phase 2 and Phase 3 ELC States and the &quot;2016 Final Performance Report&quot; (FPR) data from the Phase 1 ELC States. These reports were submitted to the Departments of Education and Health and Human Services for review in the spring of 2017. Additional examples of initiatives to support Family, Friend, and Neighbor child care providers in both ELC and non-ELC States were found in 2015 report, &quot;Supporting License-Exempt Family Child Care,&quot; by the National Center on Early Childhood Quality Assurance. The first section of this document describes efforts in nine ELC States (Colorado, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Washington) to support Family, Friend, and Neighbor providers. The second section describes selected efforts in additional States. Initiatives to support Family, Friends, and Neighbors providers includes assistance with transitioning from license-exempt care to licensed care, help with participating in their State's Quality Rating and Improvement System (QRIS), professional development, opportunities for learning in peer cohorts, technical assistance, peer mentoring, access to online resources, partnerships with libraries, financial incentives, and a creation of a task force to understand the issues.
Coordinated Monitoring Systems for Early Care and Education. OPRE Research Brief 2016-19
Author: Maxwell, Kelly
Date: 2016-03-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Child Care,Early Childhood Education,Evaluation,Coordination,Objectives,State Programs,Block Grants,Federal Aid,Grants,Federal Programs,Disabilities,Educational Legislation,Equal Education,Federal Legislation,Accreditation (Institutions),Preschool Education

Early care and education providers are subject to monitoring by multiple agencies and organizations. In this brief provides an overview of monitoring and the major early care and education monitoring systems. It then offers possible goals for a coordinated monitoring system and describes some approaches to addressing those goals. Eleven dimensions that are important to consider in planning monitoring coordination efforts are also described. The efforts of two states, Ohio and Rhode Island, that are working to coordinate their early care and education systems are highlighted. The appendix provides an overview of eight major early care and education monitoring systems.
CEIS Practice Guide: Examples of Fiscal and Child Tracking for Voluntary and Comprehensive Coordinated Early Intervening Services (CEIS). Version 1.0
Author: Crain, Danielle
Date: 2018-04-00
Type: Guides - Non-Classroom
Subjects: Educational Legislation,Disabilities,Federal Legislation,Equal Education,Related Services (Special Education),Grants,Accountability,Audits (Verification),Early Intervention,Faculty Development,Student Mobility,Special Education,Disability Identification,Cost Effectiveness,Vignettes,Integrated Services,State Programs,Elementary Secondary Education

The &quot;Individuals with Disabilities Education Act&quot; (IDEA) refers to two types of Coordinated Early Intervening Services (CEIS): voluntary CEIS and comprehensive CEIS. Each scenario describes a local education agency's (LEA's) implementation of voluntary or comprehensive CEIS and how the LEA or state could track the amount LEAs reserved for voluntary or comprehensive CEIS, the activities conducted using IDEA funds for voluntary or comprehensive CEIS, the target group of students, and ongoing student-level data about special education services. States and LEAs can use this practice guide with the &quot;Coordinated Early Intervening Services (CEIS) Fiscal and Student Data Tracker,&quot; which the IDEA Data Center (IDC) and the Center for IDEA Fiscal Reporting (CIFR) also developed. The Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) requires states to report data on the LEAs that use IDEA funds for either voluntary CEIS or comprehensive CEIS through the IDEA Part B Maintenance of Effort (MOE) Reduction and CEIS data submission. The purpose of this practice guide is to provide examples of how states and LEAs can accurately track the funds used for voluntary CEIS and comprehensive CEIS and the children who receive those services. [For &quot;Coordinated Early Intervening Services (CEIS) Fiscal and Student Data Tracker. Version 2.0,&quot; see ED583979.]
Considerations for Making Changes to SIMR Baseline and Targets
Author: Ruggiero, Tony
Date: 2015-12-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: State Standards,Measurement Techniques,Measurement Objectives,Benchmarking,Student Records,Change Strategies,Standard Setting,Disabilities,Student Improvement,Educational Quality,Elementary Secondary Education

This paper provides Part C and Part B state staff an opportunity to learn about considerations that could support changing their State-Identified Measurable Result (SIMR) baselines or targets. States are required to focus on a particular SIMR. The SIMR must be a child, youth, or family outcome and cannot be a process outcome. The SIMR might be, for example, a measure of school readiness, of achievement, of graduation rates, or of college or career readiness. The measure must include either (a) all children or youth with disabilities in the state or (b) a subset of these children or youth, with an explanation about how improving the result for that subset would improve that result on a statewide basis. Since states will be working on data quality for their SIMR, it is possible that, as data quality improves, the data for baselines will change, which could lead to revising the targets. This paper addresses four central questions: (1) What are baseline data? (2) Why change a SIMR baseline? (3) What is a target? and (4) Why change SIMR targets?