ethanporcaro/eric-fulltext-meta huggingface dataset:
Raising the Achievement of English Learners in Providence Public Schools. Report of the Strategic Support Team of the Council of the Great City Schools
Author: Council of the Great City Schools
Date: 2019-09-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: Academic Achievement,English Language Learners,Public Schools,Language Arts,Mathematics,Language Proficiency,Graduation Rate,Institutional Characteristics,Student Characteristics,Student Needs,Student Placement,Access to Education,Faculty Development,Academic Support Services,Family Involvement,Special Education,Compliance (Legal),Elementary Secondary Education,Screening Tests,Language Usage,Educational Legislation,Federal Legislation

The purpose of this report is to help improve the academic achievement of English learners (ELs) in Providence Public Schools (PPSD) and to help the district meet the detailed requirements laid out in the Settlement Agreement that PPSD entered with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). Knowing that the Council of the Great City Schools had conducted a comprehensive review of Providence's EL program in 2012, Chris Maher, who was the Providence superintendent in 2018, asked the organization for assistance in recommending ways that the district could come into compliance with DOJ requirements and improve the achievement of the district's ELs. Consequently, the Council paid special attention to the district's instructional, fiscal, and staffing issues in order to improve EL programs in the district, incorporating best practices in EL programming from across the country. This report begins with an overview of the project, including general and summary information on the DOJ Settlement Agreement. Chapter II presents a demographic overview of Providence, and the enrollment of Providence Public Schools, focusing on English learners. Chapter III presents EL achievement data as well as overall academic achievement in PPSD. Chapter IV presents findings and recommendations in each of the nine areas examined, and Chapter V presents a brief synopsis of the report and its major themes. The Council's analysis and recommendations in this report are organized along nine specific areas that are outlined in the DOJ Settlement Agreement: (1) Vision and Shared Responsibility for ELs; (2) Registration: Identification and Placement; (3) EL Access to Curriculum and Services; (4) Staffing and Professional Development; (5) EL Instructional Program Support and Monitoring; (6) Family and Community Engagement and Communication; (7) English Learners in Special Education; (8) EL Data Reporting and DOJ Agreement Compliance; and (9) Budget and Finance.
Public Safety Officers&apos; Benefits (PSOB) and Public Safety Officers&apos; Educational Assistance (PSOEA) Programs. CRS Report R45327, Version 4. Updated
Author: Szymendera, Scott D.
Date: 2020-02-03
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Police,Professional Personnel,Fire Protection,Emergency Medical Technicians,Emergency Programs,State Government,Federal Government,Local Government,Death,Disabilities,Injuries,Compensation (Remuneration),Fringe Benefits,Law Enforcement,Eligibility,Clergy,Terrorism,Student Financial Aid,Family (Sociological Unit),Spouses,Children,Higher Education

The Public Safety Officers' Benefits (PSOB) program provides cash benefits to federal, state, and local law enforcement officers; firefighters; employees of emergency management agencies; and members of emergency medical services agencies who are killed or permanently and totally disabled as the result of personal injuries sustained in the line of duty. The Public Safety Officers' Educational Assistance (PSOEA) program, a component of the PSOB program, provides higher-education assistance to the children and spouses of public safety officers killed or permanently disabled in the line of duty. Both programs are administered by the PSOB Office of the Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA). Congress appropriates funds for these programs in the annual Departments of Commerce and Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. For FY2020, the one-time lump-sum PSOB benefit is $365,670 and the monthly full-time attendance PSOEA assistance is $1,248. In FY2018, the DOJ approved 318 claims for PSOB death benefits, 59 claims for PSOB disability benefits, and 642 claims for PSOEA benefits. This report discusses the PSOB program, the PSOEA program, the PSOB and PSOEA appeals process, and budget and appropriations.
H.R. 4674, the College Affordability Act: Proposed Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, Summary of Major Provisions. CRS Report R46176, Version 1
Author: Hegji, Alexandra
Date: 2020-01-07
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Educational Legislation,Federal Legislation,Higher Education,Educational Finance,Paying for College,Student Financial Aid,Federal Aid,Grants,Student Loan Programs,Need Analysis (Student Financial Aid),Eligibility,Loan Repayment,Federal Programs,Accountability,Minority Group Students,Student Costs,Black Colleges,Community Colleges

The Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA; P.L. 89-329, as amended) authorizes programs and activities to provide support to individuals who are pursuing a postsecondary education and to institutions of higher education (IHEs). During the 116th Congress, the House Committee on Education and Labor marked up and ordered to be reported the College Affordability Act (H.R. 4674), which would provide for the comprehensive reauthorization of most HEA programs. This report organizes the changes proposed by H.R. 4674 into seven themes: (1) expanding the availability of financial aid to postsecondary students; (2) instituting borrower-focused student loan reforms; (3) modifying educational, financial, and other institutional accountability requirements for receipt of federal funds; (4) revising public accountability, transparency, and consumer information requirements; (5) expanding academic and personal supports to specific student populations; (6) increasing financial support to IHEs, focusing on minority-serving institutions; and (7) creating new grant programs for states and IHEs to reduce students' postsecondary costs.
The Office of Federal Student Aid as a Performance-Based Organization. CRS Report R46143, Version 2
Author: Hegji, Alexandra
Date: 2019-12-30
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Student Financial Aid,Federal Government,Federal Aid,Educational Legislation,Federal Legislation,Higher Education,Public Agencies,Performance,Institutional Characteristics,Governmental Structure,Accountability

The Office of Federal Student Aid (FSA), within the U.S. Department of Education (ED), is established as a performance-based organization (PBO) pursuant to Section 141 of the Higher Education Act (HEA). This report begins by discussing the HEA provisions that distinguish FSA from other types of federal agencies. This is followed by a discussion of the legislative history of the creation of FSA as a PBO and of HEA Title IV programmatic changes that may affect its operations. Next, the report describes the current operations and structure of FSA. Finally, it discusses several issues related to FSA's operations and how they may relate to its structure as a PBO. The issues presented have received recent congressional and stakeholder attention and have been identified in reviews of FSA's operations. Appendix A provides a bibliography of recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) and ED Office of Inspector General (IG) reports relating to FSA's operations. Appendix B provides a list of selected acronyms used in this report.
FY2015 State Grants under Title I-A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). CRS Report R44097, Version 4. Updated
Author: Skinner, Rebecca R.
Date: 2016-04-31
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: State Aid,Grants,Educational Finance,Educational Legislation,Elementary Secondary Education,Federal Legislation,Funding Formulas,Resource Allocation

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was comprehensively reauthorized by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA; P.L. 114-95) on December 10, 2015. The Title I-A program is the largest grant program authorized under the ESEA and is funded at $14.4 billion for FY2015. It is designed to provide supplementary educational and related services to lowachieving and other students attending pre-kindergarten through grade 12 schools with relatively high concentrations of students from low-income families. Under current law, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) determines Title I-A grants to local educational agencies (LEAs) based on four separate funding formulas: (1) Basic Grants; (2) Concentration Grants; (3) Targeted Grants; and (4) Education Finance Incentive Grants (EFIG). The four Title I-A formulas have somewhat distinct allocation patterns, providing varying shares of allocated funds to different types of states. Thus, for some states, certain formulas are more favorable than others. This report provides final FY2015 state grant amounts under each of the four formulas used to determine Title I-A grants.
Early Science &amp; Engineering: The Impact of &quot;The Cat in the Hat Knows a Lot about That!&quot; on Learning
Author: Grindal, Todd
Date: 2019-11-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: Educational Media,Educational Television,Childrens Literature,Video Games,Engineering,Low Income Groups,Knowledge Level,Physical Sciences,Scientific Concepts,Family Programs,Cost Effectiveness,Program Effectiveness,Hands on Science,Parent Child Relationship,Learning Activities,Handheld Devices,Native Language,Learner Engagement,Multimedia Materials,Preschool Children

This study's goal was to understand the extent to which providing access to media resources focused on critical science and engineering concepts can help children living in low-income households learn. The resources examined were from the PBS KIDS multi-platform property &quot;The Cat in the Hat Knows a Lot About That!&quot; Researchers found that exposure to these resources had meaningful impacts on 4- to 5-year-old children's physical science knowledge and their ability to engage with science and engineering practices.
What Parents Talk about When They Talk about Learning: A National Survey about Young Children and Science
Author: Silander, Megan
Date: 2018-03-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: National Surveys,Parent Surveys,Parent Participation,Parents as Teachers,Science Activities,Young Children,Low Income Groups,Parent Attitudes,Early Childhood Education,Science Education,Self Efficacy,Gender Differences,Technology Uses in Education

This report presents the results of a first-of-its-kind national survey of parents, who were asked about the types of early science educational activities they do with their young children. It also includes a follow-up qualitative study, focused on low-income families, which sought to illuminate parents' survey responses. The purpose of the study was to provide new insights on the ways in which parents help their young children learn, as well as new information on parents' beliefs and practices related to early science learning and the use of learning media. Selected key findings: (1) Nearly all parents, regardless of income or education level, think it is important to help their young children learn, especially social skills, literacy, and mathematics; (2) Most parents say they are confident about their ability to teach their young children literacy, math, and social skills, but fewer parents are confident about science learning; and (3) Seven of 10 parents say that knowing what young children need to learn about science, and having ideas for doing science with everyday materials, would help them.
The District of Columbia Tuition Assistance Grant (DCTAG) Program. CRS Report R41313, Version 17. Updated
Author: Shohfi, Kyle D.
Date: 2019-10-21
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Student Financial Aid,Tuition Grants,College Bound Students,Undergraduate Students,Educational Legislation,Eligibility,College Choice,Program Administration,Financial Aid Applicants,Graduation Rate,Enrollment,Black Colleges,Private Colleges,Fees

To address concerns about the public postsecondary education offerings available to District of Columbia residents, the District of Columbia College Access Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-98) established the District of Columbia Tuition Assistance Grant (DCTAG) program. The program is meant to provide college-bound DC residents with a greater array of choices among institutions of higher education by providing grants for undergraduate education. Grants for study at public institutions of higher education (IHEs) nationwide offset the difference between in-state and out-of-state tuition and fees, up to $10,000 per year and a cumulative maximum of $50,000. Students may also receive grants of up to $2,500 per year and a cumulative maximum of $12,500 for undergraduate study at Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) nationwide and private, nonprofit IHEs in the Washington, DC, metropolitan area. This report first discusses the history of the DCTAG program and the events and legislation leading up to its enactment. It then describes the program's administration, including recipient eligibility and the amount of award available based on the type of institution attended, award interaction with federal student aid, and funding. Next, the report presents DCTAG performance data, such as the types of institutions DCTAG recipients primarily attend and the types of students served by the program (e.g., the number of grants received, by DC ward). Finally, the report provides an analysis of grant benefits and discusses the extent to which DCTAG awards may be bridging the gap between in-state and out-of-state tuition
Advancement Investment and Fundraising Results: A Nine-Year Study of 30 Higher Education Institutions in the United States. Research Brief No. 4
Author: Council for Advancement and Support of Education
Date: 2019-09-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: Investment,Fund Raising,Higher Education,Outcomes of Education,Private Financial Support,Expenditures,Salaries,Fringe Benefits

It is a well-established principle that being asked to contribute has a significant effect on the frequency and level of philanthropic behavior. This brief summarizes data from the Council for Advancement and Support of Education (CASE) Voluntary Support of Education (VSE) survey about advancement investment, specifically fundraising and advancement management functions (referred to as &quot;fundraising&quot; throughout this report) and their combined effect on charitable giving at a set of institutions studied since 2010. The report states the following findings: (1) In 2018, 101 institutions reported on both advancement investment and private philanthropic support; (2) In general, higher investment yields higher returns; (3) Adjusted for inflation, advancement investment per full-time equivalent (FTE) employee increased 17.8 percent over the 30 institutions and nine years studied; and (4) Even when plotted in three-year averages, aiming to smooth variation caused by capital campaigns, significant gifts, and economic factors, the result is the same. Increased investment yields greater outcomes. Fundraising outcomes are the results of multifaceted relationships between institutions and supporters. These relationships arise for many reasons and in varying economic environments. Since institutions cannot control the economic circumstances in which they raise money, they focus on what is within their sphere of influence-- specifically, the relationships they have with contributors. [This report was also prepared by AMAtlas.]
Time to Act: Connecting Policy to Practice to Make Data Work for Students
Author: Data Quality Campaign
Date: 2019-00-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Data Analysis,Outcomes of Education,Educational Improvement,Educational Quality,Educational Policy,Privacy,Trust (Psychology),State Policy,Academic Achievement,Teacher Effectiveness,Elementary Secondary Education,School Districts

The most effective state efforts to improve student outcomes do not exist in a silo; they cut across multiple policy priorities to make data work for students. And while their crosscutting data initiatives can still be strengthened, some states are supporting schools with efforts that reach across the Data Quality Campaign's (DQC) Four Policy Priorities to Make Data Work for Students. As state leaders seek to use data to improve school quality and support student success, they must push past solutions that address only one policy priority and tackle changes that solve multiple policy implementation challenges. DQC's Four Policy Priorities identify how states can transform the use of data from a tool of compliance to one that empowers people and fuels continuous improvement: (1) Measure what matters; (2) Make data use possible; (3) Be transparent and earn trust; and (4) Guarantee access and protect privacy. This report highlights state initiatives that reach across policy priorities to take a step forward in using data to make sure that all students excel. The following states are states to watch--and emulate--as leaders seek to make data work for students: Idaho, Texas, Tennessee, Georgia, Wisconsin, and Kentucky.
Combatting Academic Corruption and Enhancing Integrity: Inventory of Key Questions for Quality Assurance and Accreditation Organizations
Author: Council for Higher Education Accreditation
Date: 2019-08-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Integrity,Quality Assurance,Accreditation (Institutions),Accountability,Educational Malpractice,Standards,Higher Education,Expertise,Advocacy,Policy Formation,Institutional Cooperation,Cheating,Plagiarism,Deception,Observation

Academic corruption in its different forms is not a new phenomenon. The Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) has been active in addressing this area for a number of years. In cooperation with UNESCO, it issued an &quot;Advisory Statement on Discouraging Degree Mills&quot; (see ED603204). The document was prepared for the 2009 UNESCO World Conference on Higher Education and had an impact on the Communiqué the Conference adopted. As academic corruption expanded further, far beyond degree and accreditation mills alone, CHEA's International Quality Group (CIQG), working closely with UNESCO's International Institute for International Planning (IIEP), issued another publication, an &quot;Advisory on Combatting Corruption and Enhancing Integrity in Higher Education&quot; (see ED603202) in 2016. As follow-up to the Advisory, CHEA/CIQG raised awareness about its findings through webinars, articles and Policy Briefs. Finally, based on the findings and recommendations of a CIQG commissioned worldwide &quot;Survey on Policies and Actions of Accreditation and Quality Assurance Bodies to Counter Corruption in Higher Education&quot; (see ED597946), CIQG is taking steps to encourage additional action by quality assurance bodies to fight academic corruption. The major findings of the 2019 survey are: (1) There is evidence of significant corruption in higher education; (2) Awareness of academic corruption is greater in some regions or countries than others; and (3) Most current quality assurance methods are unlikely to uncover academic corruption. Based on the evidence demonstrated by the Survey that quality assurance/accreditation bodies, with a few exceptions, play a limited role in combatting academic corruption, the purpose of this Inventory is to provide ideas and suggestions to quality assurance bodies to further engage and assume greater responsibility in this area. The Inventory is based on the recommendations provided in the Survey, the Advisory Statement and suggestions from additional experts.
Conversations about Quality in Higher Education: What Are They and Where Do We Take Them? An Exploratory Paper from the Council for Higher Education Accreditation. CHEA/CIQG Publication Series
Author: Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) International Quality Group (CIQG)
Date: 2019-10-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Educational Quality,Higher Education,Accountability,Accreditation (Institutions),Educational Indicators,Academic Achievement,Social Justice,Equal Education,Freedom of Speech,Academic Standards,Credentials,Education Work Relationship,Job Skills,Role of Education

The issue of quality in higher education has been a staple of conversation for centuries. In the current environment, this conversation is complex, involving many constituents and, at times, contentious. To explore and address the central question of quality, the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) has initiated a &quot;National Quality Dialogue,&quot; a series of national and regional meetings, interviews with key leaders in higher education and a research and publications series. The Dialogue involves a framing and exploring of academic quality in relation to the future of higher education and accreditation. Both higher education and accreditation are currently subject to unprecedented public scrutiny and pressures to change. Public scrutiny of the success of higher education has intensified and comes from many quarters: media, government, students, research and policy centers and foundations. Higher education is diversifying, with emerging new types of providers and credentialing of educational experiences, beyond traditional, degree-granting colleges and universities. Emerging diversification includes a dynamic and changing student population, alternative approaches to teaching and learning and variation in how higher education is structured and operates. This paper briefly explores five major national quality conversations, offering descriptions of the thinking of five significant actors in the quality space: (1) higher education and accreditation, (2) research and policy institutes and foundations, (3) alternative providers (and alternative credentials), (4) the federal government and (5) employers. The intent is to make clear the essential thrust of thinking in each of the conversations and what drives them. The conversations are not mutually exclusive. Although they differ in some key respects, they are similar in a number of instances. This paper asks the following questions: (1) What can be learned that strengthens quality in higher education; (2) Where might the conversations lead going forward; and (3) What role might accreditation play? Developing a future dialogue on quality involves acknowledgment of the similarities in each of these conversations, as well as how each differs from the other.
Toolkit for CEOs and CAOs: Making the Case for Quality--Purpose and Background. CHEA/CIQG Publication Series
Author: Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) International Quality Group (CIQG)
Date: 2019-10-00
Type: Guides - Non-Classroom
Subjects: Administrators,Deans,Educational Quality,Colleges,Higher Education,Performance,Institutional Characteristics,Leadership Role,College Students,Student Experience,Academic Support Services,Student Personnel Services,Success,Information Dissemination

This &quot;Toolkit&quot; is intended to assist CEOs and CAOs to make the case for quality for their institutions: framing, affirming, advocating for quality. The materials (1) provide key questions about quality and (2) offer suggestions for responses that can be tailored to individual colleges and universities. The &quot;Toolkit&quot; is one means of conceptualizing the quality and performance of a college or university to demonstrate the value of efforts to serve students and society. The material here may be used, e.g., to address the importance of quality and the value of an institution to governing boards, faculty, students, the community, employers, and government officials at all levels.