ethanporcaro/eric-fulltext-meta huggingface dataset:
Federal Expenditures on Children: What Budget Policy Means for Children's Policy. Social Policy Report. Volume 29, Number 1
Author: Hahn, Heather
Date: 2015-00-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: Expenditures,Federal Aid,Children,Budgeting,Funding Formulas,Program Descriptions,Program Costs,Public Policy,Trend Analysis,Federal Legislation,State Aid,School District Spending,Educational History,Tax Credits,Statistical Distributions,Financial Policy

How do children fare in the federal budget? Investments in children's health, education, and overall well-being pay high dividends for taxpayers and the economy as a whole. Without adequately funded education, nutrition, housing, early education and care, and other basic supports, the foundation of children's well-being is at risk. This report 1) explains how spending on children fits in the broad budgetary context, 2) closely examines how historical and current federal spending on children is distributed among different programs, types of programs, and types of spending, and 3) projects future federal spending on children, if current laws and policies remain unchanged. The report finds that spending on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid (excluding children) will continue rising as a share of the federal budget, to nearly half (47 percent) of federal spending in 2024, while the share of federal outlays on children is projected to decline to just under 8 percent that same year. All categories of federal spending on children except health are projected to experience relative declines over the next decade. [Four commentaries are included: (1) Federal Spending Priorities Are Wrong (Ron Haskins); and (2) Follow the Money: Inconvenient Truths About Public Investments in Children (Ruby Takanishi)--The Foundation for Child Development partially funded the analyses reported in this commentary; (3) The Big Shift and Future Public Investments in Children (W. Steven Barnett); and (4) Federal, State and Local Expenditures: Not Suitable for Young Children (Sarah Ann Kotchian). Commentaries are individually referenced.]
High-Tech or High-Touch? Online Learning and Independent Higher Education. Innovations in Teaching and Learning. Research Brief 5
Author: Katz, Philip M.
Date: 2016-02-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: Electronic Learning,Online Courses,Undergraduate Students,Private Colleges,Universities,Educational Quality,College Faculty,Teacher Attitudes,Adoption (Ideas),Curriculum Development,Barriers,Teacher Student Ratio,Costs,Blended Learning

Independent colleges and universities are cautious adopters of online education for undergraduate students. These institutions seek to balance a tradition of student-focused pedagogy in face-to-face settings and faculty wariness of online courses against the promise of lower instructional costs, changing student expectations, and the potential for better student learning outcomes. Research shows that online learning can be at least as effective as traditional classroom instruction, but many faculty members remain skeptical about the quality of online courses. The gap between faculty members and academic leaders with regard to perceived quality represents a significant barrier to broader adoption of online education. Although online education may have the potential to reduce instructional costs at the undergraduate level, the evidence that it actually does remains inconclusive. The development of online courses often requires a greater investment of time and resources than the development of traditional courses. For smaller independent institutions committed to relatively low student-faculty ratios, cost savings from online education are more likely to materialize after courses are offered multiple times or when institutions share online courses. Barriers to the adoption of online education at independent colleges and universities include uncertain cost models, concerns about decreasing the ranks of full-time faculty members and outsourcing instruction, and the high cost of supporting and maintaining a sophisticated technology infrastructure and instructional platforms. [This brief was prepared by the CIC Project on the Future of Independent Higher Education.]
A Report on the Status of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders in Education: Beyond the &quot;Model Minority&quot; Stereotype
Author: Lee, Stacey J.
Date: 2005-00-00
Type: Speeches/Meeting Papers
Subjects: Asian Americans,Pacific Islanders,Student Diversity,Minority Groups,Ethnic Stereotypes,Ethnic Groups,Social Class,Gender Differences,Religious Factors,Racial Bias,Educational Policy,Academic Standards,Accountability,Teaching Methods,Culturally Relevant Education,Curriculum

In January 2005, the National Education Association (NEA) partnered with the Asian Pacific American Institute for Congressional Studies (APAICS) to host the National Summit on Asian and Pacific Islander Issues in Education. The Summit brought together over 50 researchers, leaders of national organizations, and NEA members to discuss the status of Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) students in U.S. schools. Presentations and discussion groups focused on the diversity of backgrounds, experiences, and achievement levels among AAPI students, the impact of the federal No Child Left Behind Act on AAPI students, challenges of teaching to and teaching about AAPIs, and recommendations and resources for advocating change. This report draws on the presentations, discussions, and resources from the Summit. This report will go behind the model minority stereotype in an effort to reveal the complex and diverse realities of Asian American and Pacific Islander students. It will examine the ways that ethnicity, social class, gender, religion, and generation inform AAPI student experiences and achievement. It will focus attention on how race and racism continue to influence AAPI student identities and experiences. The report will also examine the impact of current educational policies and practices on AAPI students and will conclude with recommendations and resources for action. [This report was written with Kevin K. Kumashiro.]
Living-Learning Communities and Independent Higher Education. Innovations in Teaching and Learning. Research Brief 4
Author: Katz, Philip M.
Date: 2015-10-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: Private Colleges,Universities,College Students,Communities of Practice,Commuting Students,Dormitories,Living Learning Centers,Residential Programs,Educational Innovation

Living-learning communities combine curricular, co-curricular, and residential components of college life. They are a relatively new variation on the residential education that has been part of the undergraduate experience at America's independent colleges and universities for centuries. Research suggests that living-learning communities have a positive impact on academic performance, intellectual development, civic engagement, and the smooth transition of first-year students into college life, among other desirable student outcomes. Challenges to developing and maintaining effective living-learning programs include difficulties related to assessment, faculty participation, collaboration between academic affairs and student affairs, and program costs. Independent colleges and universities have developed living-learning communities for a wide range of student populations--first-year students, first-generation students, upper-class students with specific academic interests, even commuters--in a variety of residential settings from traditional dorms to yurts. [This brief was prepared by the CIC Project on the Future of Independent Higher Education.]
A Report on the Status of Women in Education: Achieving Gender Equity for Women and Girls
Author: Mobley, Pamela Rios
Date: 2010-00-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: Disproportionate Representation,Females,Womens Education,Civil Rights,Public Education,Student Diversity,Gender Bias,Women Faculty,Conferences (Gatherings),Dropouts,At Risk Students,Minority Group Students,Early Parenthood,Pregnancy,Barriers,Hispanic American Students,Academic Ability,Attitudes,STEM Education,Educational Change,Social Influences,Bullying,Sexual Harassment,Dating (Social),Violence,Safety,Intervention,Educational Legislation,Gender Discrimination,Federal Legislation,Sex Fairness,Athletics,Single Sex Classes

In 2005, the National Education Association (NEA) began publishing a series of reports on the status of underserved groups in education. This report on the status of women and girls is based on the principle that every student has the human and civil right to a quality public education. America's public schools are expected to serve the needs of an increasingly diverse student body. Gender equity and the achievement of high standards for all students are fundamentally linked. All students can benefit from programs and strategies that build on their strengths and encourage them to explore meaningful possibilities for their futures. On April 4, 2009, the National Education Association hosted its first &quot;National Summit on the Status of Women in Education.&quot; The Summit brought together advocates from the community, women's organizations, academia, and NEA to discuss what can be done to address critical issues facing women and girls. Through a series of moderated discussions, summit participants and presenters worked together to outline policy recommendations for issues pertaining to education (girls and graduation and girls in math and science), social relationships (girls and sexual harassment), and women's rights (girls' athletics and single-sex education under Title IX legislation). This report draws on the presentations, discussions, and resources from the Summit. [This report was written with Sabrina Holcomb.]
Rankings &amp; Estimates: Rankings of the States 2015 and Estimates of School Statistics 2016
Author: National Education Association
Date: 2016-05-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: Public Education,Government Role,Educational Finance,Geographic Location,Elementary Secondary Education,Enrollment Trends,Attendance Patterns,Teachers,Financial Support,Federal Aid,State Aid,Local Government,Income,Expenditures,Educational Administration,School Districts,High School Graduates,Salaries,Expenditure per Student

The data presented in this combined report--&quot;Rankings &amp; Estimates&quot;--provide facts about the extent to which local, state, and national governments commit resources to public education. As one might expect in a nation as diverse as the United States--with respect to economics, geography, and politics--the level of commitment to education varies on a state-by-state basis. Regardless of these variations, improvements in public education can be measured by summary statistics. Thus, the National Education Association (NEA) Research offers this report to its state and local affiliates as well as to researchers, policymakers, and the public as a tool to examine public education programs and services. Part I of this combined report--&quot;Rankings 2015&quot;--provides state-level data on an array of topics relevant to the complex enterprise of public education. Since the 1960s, Rankings has presented facts and figures useful in determining how states differ from one another--or from national averages--on selected statistics. In addition to identifying emerging trends in key economic, political, and social areas, the state-by-state figures on government financing, state demographics, and public schools permit a statistical assessment of the scope of public education. Of course, no set of tables tells the entire story of a state's education offerings. Consideration of factors such as a state's tax system, provisions for other public services, and population characteristics also are needed. Therefore, it is unwise to draw conclusions based solely on individual statistics in this report. Readers are urged to supplement the ranked data with specific information about state and local service activities related to public education. Part II of this combined report--&quot;Estimates 2016&quot;--is in its 72nd year of production. This report provides projections of public school enrollment, employment and compensation of personnel, and finances, as reported by individual state departments of education. Not surprisingly, interest in the improvement and renewal of public education continues to capture the attention of the nation. The state-level data featured in Estimates permit broad assessments of trends in staff salaries, sources of school funding, and levels of educational expenditures. The data should be used with the understanding that the reported statewide totals and averages may not reflect the varying conditions that exist among school districts and schools within the state.
Common Core State Standards: A Tool for Improving Education. NEA Policy Brief
Author: National Education Association
Date: 2010-00-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Common Core State Standards,Educational Policy,Educational Improvement,Partnerships in Education,Program Content,Relevance (Education),Educational Objectives,Program Implementation,Change Strategies,Educational Resources

For many years, there have been efforts to promote the development of national standards for education in the United States. In the Spring of 2010, the National Governors Association (NGA) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) completed a project to develop Common Core State Standards (CCSS). Leading education organizations, such as the National Education Association (NEA), the College Board, Achieve, and ACT agreed to become partners with NGA and CCSSO. Members of major teacher organizations--NEA, the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), the International Reading Association (IRA), the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM), and the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE)--served as review groups. Their comments led to a number of changes for the final draft of the CCSS. This brief discusses the following: (1) what the Common Core State Standards cover; (2) what is special about the Standards; (3) what the Standards can accomplish; (4) what happens after the Standards are adopted in states; and (5) what else is needed to improve education.
A Report on the Status of American Indians and Alaska Natives in Education: Historical Legacy to Cultural Empowerment
Author: Trujillo, Octaviana V.
Date: 2005-00-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: American Indians,Alaska Natives,Empowerment,American Indian Education,American Indian History,American Indian Culture,Educational Strategies,Educational Improvement,Change Strategies,Conferences (Gatherings),Educational Attainment,Academic Achievement,Tribally Controlled Education,School Role,Social Change,Indigenous Populations,Self Determination,Success,Teacher Education,School Community Relationship,Educational Policy,State Policy,Educational Legislation,Federal Legislation,Educational Practices,Educational Opportunities,Civil Rights Legislation

On October 27, 2004, the National Education Association (NEA) joined with the National Indian Education Association (NIEA) to host &quot;Moving from Research to Practice: A Summit on Indian Students.&quot; Over 100 American Indian and Alaska Native education practitioners and researchers from Alaska to Mississippi gathered to share their knowledge of effective educational strategies for American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) students. Presentations focused on four themes: Using Native Language and Culture to Promote Success in Indian Students; Preparing Educators to Be Effective Supports for Student Achievement; Reaching Out to the Community to Create Success; and Promoting Policies that Benefit Indian Students. This report draws, in part, on the presentations and discussions held at the Summit, and explores several aspects of the American Indian/Alaska Native historical, social, and cultural experiences as they relate to the development of Indian education. Using these experiences as a context, the report suggests a few broad strategies for improving the status of AI/AN education and provides recommendations for action. Multiple resources round out the text to encourage further investigation into how to make a positive impact on the education of American Indian and Alaska Native students. Contains the following: (1) Endnotes; (2) History Timeline: Selected Dates in Indian History and Indian Education; and (3) Resources. [This report was written with the assistance of Douglas Martin.]
An Overview of U.S. Accreditation. Revised November 2015
Author: Eaton, Judith S.
Date: 2015-11-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Accreditation (Institutions),Quality Assurance,Educational Quality,Educational Improvement,Organizational Objectives,Institutional Characteristics,Financial Support,Accountability,Recognition (Achievement),College Governing Councils,Nongovernmental Organizations,Academic Standards,Public Agencies,Administrative Principles

This publication provides a general description of the key features of U.S. accreditation of higher education and recognition of accrediting organizations. Accreditation in the United States is about quality assurance and quality improvement. It is a process to scrutinize higher education institutions and programs. Accreditation is private (nongovernmental) and nonprofit--an outgrowth of the higher education community and not of government. It is funded primarily by the institutions and programs that are accredited. Accreditation has a complex relationship with government, especially in relation to funding higher education. It adds value to society through assuring quality, enabling government to make sound judgments about the use of public funds, aiding the private sector in decisions about financial support and easing transfer of credit. Recognition in the United States is about scrutiny of the quality and effectiveness of accrediting organizations. It is carried out by the higher education enterprise through the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA), a private body, and by the United States Department of Education (USDE). CHEA recognition is funded by institutional dues; USDE recognition is funded by the U.S. Congress. The goals of the two recognition processes are different: (1) CHEA: Assuring that accrediting organizations contribute to maintaining and improving academic quality; and (2) USDE: Assuring that accrediting organizations contribute to maintaining the soundness of institutions and programs that receive federal funds. The two recognition processes are similar: self-evaluation based on standards, site visit and report, award of recognition status. Recognition adds value to society as a vital part of accreditation accountability or &quot;accrediting the accreditors.&quot; [For the 2012 edition, see ED544355.]
The Disappearing Continent: A Critique of the Revised Advanced Placement European History Examination
Author: Randall, David
Date: 2016-07-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: Advanced Placement Programs,European History,Secondary School Curriculum,Curriculum Development,College Entrance Examinations,Review (Reexamination),Criticism,Curriculum Evaluation,Educational Opportunities,Educational Philosophy,Educational Change

This document extends the National Association of Scholars' (NAS's) critique of the College Board from Advanced Placement U.S. History (APUSH) to Advanced Placement European History (APEH). The College Board distorts APEH in the same way that it distorted the first version of APUSH. The traditional history of Europe tells how Europeans, uniquely, articulated the ideals of freedom, put them into practice, and created the modern world. APEH's leftist skew transforms the history of Europe into a story of a generic modernization process that turned Europe into a secular, well-governed welfare state. This skew disserves American high school students by presenting a badly distorted history of Europe that ignores or minimizes the parts of Europe's history that contradict its progressive narrative. Throughout this report, lists of topics missing from the APEH framework are provided to illustrate APEH's exclusion of key themes and subject areas from its curriculum. A large number of missing subjects make clear the scale and the distorting character of APEH's omissions. However, the range of topics and significant events is too large to permit a truly comprehensive approach. The point in noting so many omissions is not that they all should be corrected in detail, but that APEH should change its examination to include whole categories of history that it currently neglects. This report focuses primarily on the substance of APEH's distortions of European history and secondarily on how APEH's framework gets rid of most reasons to study the subject. Recommendations for revising APEH are included.
State Digital Learning Exemplars: Highlights from States Leading Change through Policies and Funding
Author: Acree, Lauren
Date: 2015-05-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: State Policy,State Action,State Aid,Funding Formulas,Financial Policy,Educational Innovation,Electronic Publishing,Electronic Libraries,Human Capital,Capacity Building,Information Networks,Information Management,Privacy,Educational Practices,Educational Resources,Leaders,Incentive Grants,Role Models,Educational Change,Elementary Secondary Education,Investment

States are striving to support the expansion of technology tools and resources in K-12 education through state policies, programs, and funding in order to provide digital learning opportunities for all students. This paper highlights examples of states with policies in support of five key areas: (1) innovative funding streams and policy; (2) digital content; (3) human capacity; (4) network infrastructure; and (5) data management and privacy. While there has been progress toward digital learning nationwide, several states have emerged as leaders in embracing digital learning via state policies and practices in all five areas mentioned above: Alabama, Indiana, Kentucky, North Carolina, and Utah. This report also highlights other states with significant progress in at least one of the specific five areas. Some critical areas for consideration that emerged include: (1) state investment in funding and policy; (2) digital content; (3) development of human capacity; (4) systemic approach to networks and infrastructure; and (5) student data and privacy. Leadership at the state level is paramount. Without strong leaders crafting a vision, which includes all five focus areas described in this report, statewide progress toward digital learning is difficult. As policymakers consider investments in technological tools and resources, they should also consider their broader vision for digital learning for their students. Contains endnotes.