ethanporcaro/eric-fulltext-meta huggingface dataset:
The Role of the Common Core in the Gubernatorial Elections of 2014
Author: Supovitz, Jonathan
Date: 2014-11-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: State Standards,Academic Standards,Alignment (Education),State Government,Elections,Politics of Education,Political Candidates,Political Attitudes,Political Campaigns

After the Spring 2014 primaries, the Common Core State Standards were viewed as a political hot potato. As former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee said, &quot;the Common Core has become toxic, I think it's radioactive…It has become an incredibly controversial topic on both the left and the right.&quot; Even so, the Common Core turned out to play a role in some of the governor's races in November, 2014. In this analysis of candidate positions and the role of the Common Core across the 36 gubernatorial races of 2014, CPRE researchers Bobbi Newman, Jonathan Supovitz and Arial Smith used campaign websites, debate transcripts, State of the State addresses, Twitter accounts, and candidate interviews, to identify the positions of 62 of the 81 candidates (including 3rd party representatives). Our findings show that support for, and opposition to, the Common Core was pretty evenly split, mostly across party lines. Arguments in support of the Common Core tended to emphasize economic benefits, while opposition emphasized Federal intrusion and the importance of local control. In a few races, the Common Core became a substantial issue. Contains the following table: Summary of 2014 Candidates and Their Positions on the Common Core.
Early Childhood Home Visiting in California: The Right Place at the Right Time. Policy Brief
Author: Children Now
Date: 2014-09-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Home Visits,Poverty,Housing,Child Rearing,Family Violence,Stress Variables,Child Development,Coaching (Performance),Program Effectiveness,Guidance,Intervention,Program Descriptions,State Policy,Financial Support,Prevention,Child Health,State Aid,Child Neglect,Child Abuse,Disadvantaged Youth,Preschool Education,Preschool Children,Young Children

The birth of a child can be a simultaneously joyous and challenging time for families. Virtually all parents will struggle with the enormous physical and emotional demands of parenting a very young child, but for too many California families those challenges are additionally compounded by poverty, housing instability, lack of social support, or domestic violence during the early years of parenthood and childhood. Such adverse circumstances can create significant strain within households, introducing stress that disrupts children's development and increases the likelihood of short and long term unfavorable outcomes for both parents and children. Voluntary home visiting is a proven early childhood strategy that helps parents provide the best foundation possible for their children's early development through support, guidance, coaching, and resources. This brief is intended to set the stage for further discussions about how to expand and enhance early childhood home visiting in California.
After Winning, Then What? An Inside Look at Four Winners of Federal Early Education Grant Competitions
Author: Nyhan, Paul
Date: 2014-12-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Early Childhood Education,Federal Aid,Competition,Federal Programs,Incentive Grants,Case Studies,Educational Change,Educational Policy,Barriers,Performance Factors,Program Implementation,Educational Practices,Change Strategies,Models,Innovation,Educational Quality,Partnerships in Education,Replication (Evaluation),Evaluation Problems,Parent Participation,Sustainability,Educational Assessment,Educational Indicators,Educational Resources,Formative Evaluation,School Readiness,Best Practices,Effective Schools Research,Investment,Federal Legislation,Educational Legislation

Early education has been a growing priority for the Obama administration, and its competitive funding is spurring innovation in this field around the country. In 2013, early education journalist Paul Nyhan, author of this report, conducted case studies of four competitive grant programs that are triggering changes in early education: &quot;Race to the Top-Early Learning Challenge&quot; (RTT-ELC), the &quot;Social Innovation Fund&quot; (SIF), &quot;Investing in Innovation&quot; (i3), and &quot;Promise Neighborhoods.&quot; This brief provides an inside look at what kind of progress is possible--and what limitations exist--when policies are advanced through small competitive grants. The brief also opens a door into the world of implementation--the mechanics required to change practices on the ground--that rarely grabs headlines, is often invisible, and yet is the critical piece of ensuring that funding is used well and that policies succeed. [Acknowledged for their contribution to the report are Abbie Lieberman, Introduction Author; and Laura Bornfreund, Editor. The New America Education Policy Program's work is made possible through generous grants from the Alliance for Early Success; the Annie E. Casey Foundation; the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; the Evelyn &amp; Walter Haas Jr. Fund; the Foundation for Child Development; the Heising-Simons Foundation; the Joyce Foundation; the Kresge Foundation; Lumina Foundation; the McKnight Foundation; the Pritzker Children's Initiative; the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation; the W. Clement and Jessie V. Stone Foundation; and the W.K. Kellogg Foundation.]
Myths &amp; Misunderstandings: The Undeserved Legacy of Year-Round Pell Grants
Author: Delisle, Jason
Date: 2015-01-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: Grants,Budgets,Educational Finance,Student Financial Aid,College Students,Interviews,School Schedules,Costs,Federal Aid,Financial Support,Eligibility,Educational Legislation,Federal Legislation,Federal Government

The first two years of the Obama administration brought nothing but good news for student financial aid programs. These included increases to grants, tax benefits, and funding for community colleges and minority-serving schools. But in early 2011, President Obama and Congress released the new budget with a request that would achieve large savings within the Pell Grant program by eliminating a little-discussed provision that allowed students to receive an additional Pell Grant for attending school beyond the typical two-semester schedule (typically-called year-round Pell Grant). Why? Many in the higher education community--including authoritative sources from Congress, the Obama administration, and the Congressional Research Service--will say it was because the program was flawed. Up until now, no one has examined those claims. To find out what actually happened, the history of the year-round Pell Grant was carefully reviewed: the statute and regulations that implemented it, budget statistics, and the rationales given for its elimination. Also interviewed were experts inside and outside the executive branch and Congress. What was found was not gross incompetence, abuse, or ill-designed policy that many believed plagued the original program. This paper scrutinizes common claims such as: students inadvertently received larger grants than intended; a year-round benefit shouldn't increase the cost of the overall Pell Grant program; for-profit colleges abused the program; and the Department of Education botched the implementation of the program, driving costs higher. Ultimately, this paper shows that the year-round program was buffeted by the same forces that caused every other part of the Pell Grant program to rise in cost, and that those forces coincided with decisions Congress had made that exacerbated funding problems with the overall Pell Grant program. Ending year-round grants became an expedient way to trim costs without sacrificing more visible parts of the broader Pell Grant program. The paper includes recommendations for a New Year-Round Pell Grant program. An appendix: 'Year-Round Pell Grant, Statutory Language under the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008, Public Law 110-315&quot; is included. [The New America Education Policy Program's work is made possible through generous grants from the Alliance for Early Success; the Annie E. Casey Foundation; the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; the Grable Foundation; the Foundation for Child Development; the Joyce Foundation; the Kresge Foundation; Lumina Foundation; the Pritzker Children's Initiative; the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation; and the W. Clement and Jessie V. Stone Foundation.]
Contributions of Two-Year Institutions to Four-Year Completions. Snapshot™ Report, Spring 2015
Author: National Student Clearinghouse Research Center
Date: 2015-00-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: Two Year Colleges,College Role,College Outcomes Assessment,Enrollment Trends,College Transfer Students,Graduation Rate,Time to Degree,Statistical Data

In the 2013-14 academic year, 46 percent of students who completed a degree at a four-year institution were enrolled at a two-year institution at some point in the previous 10 years. This is a one percentage point increase over the comparable figure for degrees awarded in 2010-11. The prior two-year enrollment may have been brief (as little as a single course) and the two-year institution may or may not have been the first one the student attended. As shown on page 3, 21 percent of students previously enrolled at two-year institutions were enrolled for only one term. In 14 states, more than half of four-year degree recipients were previously enrolled at a two-year institution.
Current Term Enrollment Estimates: Fall 2014
Author: National Student Clearinghouse Research Center
Date: 2014-00-00
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: Enrollment,Postsecondary Education,College Students,Enrollment Rate,Enrollment Trends,Two Year Colleges,Public Colleges,Private Colleges,Proprietary Schools,Age Groups,Gender Differences

Current Term Enrollment Estimates, published every December and May by the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center (NSCRC), include national enrollment estimates by institutional sector, state, enrollment intensity, age group, and gender. Enrollment estimates are adjusted for Clearinghouse data coverage rates by institutional sector, state, and year. As of fall 2014, postsecondary institutions actively submitting enrollment data to the Clearinghouse account for 96 percent of enrollments at U.S. Title IV, degree-granting institutions. Most institutions submit enrollment data to the Clearinghouse several times per term, resulting in highly current data. Moreover, since the Clearinghouse collects data at the student level, it is possible to report an unduplicated headcount, which avoids double-counting students who are simultaneously enrolled at multiple institutions. The Fall 2014 Current Term Enrollment Estimates were originally released on December 10, 2014. As noted in that report, a number of institutions (sixteen) had recently been reclassified from two-year to four-year by the Department of Education's IPEDS system. These reclassifications had an important effect on the Current Term Enrollment Estimates, increasing total enrollment counts for the four-year public sector, while simultaneously decreasing enrollment counts for the two-year public sector. However, this effect was exaggerated in the original Clearinghouse report, which placed all of the reclassifications in Fall 2014, when they more accurately would have been distributed across four years. The NSCRC has revised the public sector figures in this report, so that the timing of the reclassifications reflects the timing with which these institutions were reclassified in IPEDS. This means that the enrollments in 2-year public and 4-year public sectors for each of the terms Fall 2011 through Fall 2013 have been restated. There is no change to the numbers in the &quot;all sectors&quot; category, nor in the &quot;4-year private nonprofit&quot; or &quot;4-year private for-profit&quot; categories, and the total numbers of students in the public sector have not changed. Only the allocation of public sector students to 2-year vs. 4-year institutions has shifted. In fall 2014, overall postsecondary enrollments decreased 1.3 percent from the previous fall, and enrollments decreased among two-year public institutions (-3.5 percent) and four-year for-profit institutions (-0.4 percent). Enrollments were unchanged among four-year public institutions (0.0 percent), and increased among four-year private non-profit institutions (+1.6 percent). Taken as a whole, public sector enrollments (2-year and 4-year combined) declined by 1.5 percent.
Why Student Loans Are Different: Findings from Six Focus Groups of Student Loan Borrowers
Author: Delisle, Jason
Date: 2015-03-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: Focus Groups,Student Loan Programs,Loan Repayment,Paying for College,Debt (Financial),College Students,Unemployment,Underemployment,Student Characteristics

For all the attention student loans have received in the media and from policymakers in recent years, there is still remarkably little information on why and how borrowers struggle to repay them. Rising college prices and debt levels explain some of the troubles borrowers have with their loans, as does a slow economic recovery that has caused unemployment and underemployment. To seek a broader explanation of student loan struggles, &quot;New America's Education Policy Program&quot; commissioned a series of six focus groups that met between June and October 2014. Groups met in Philadelphia, Boston, Phoenix, San Francisco, Chicago, and Atlanta and included a total of 59 student loan borrowers. Participants were selected based on a range of characteristics regarding their self-reported repayment histories, but all indicated they had at some point struggled to repay their student loans. This paper provides a broad and objective look at struggling borrowers, and spotlights specific explanations and details that participants provided about their borrowing and repayment experiences that may be surprising to the federal policy community. [The New America Education Policy Program's work is made possible through generous grants from the Alliance for Early Success; the Annie E. Casey Foundation; the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; the Grable Foundation; the Foundation for Child Development; the Joyce Foundation; the Kresge Foundation; Lumina Foundation; the Pritzker Children's Initiative; the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation; and the W. Clement and Jessie V. Stone Foundation.]
Current Term Enrollment Estimates: Spring 2014
Author: National Student Clearinghouse Research Center
Date: 2014-00-00
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: Enrollment,Postsecondary Education,College Students,Enrollment Rate,Enrollment Trends,Two Year Colleges,Public Colleges,Private Colleges,Proprietary Schools,Age Groups,Gender Differences

Current Term Enrollment Estimates, published every December and May by the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center, include national enrollment estimates by institutional sector, state, enrollment intensity, age group, and gender. Enrollment estimates are adjusted for Clearinghouse data coverage rates by institutional sector, state, and year. As of spring 2014, postsecondary institutions actively submitting enrollment data to the Clearinghouse account for 96 percent of enrollments at U.S. Title IV, degree-granting institutions. Most institutions submit enrollment data to the Clearinghouse several times per term, resulting in highly current data. Moreover, since the Clearinghouse collects data at the student level, it is possible to report an unduplicated headcount, which avoids double-counting students who are simultaneously enrolled at multiple institutions. In spring 2014, overall postsecondary enrollments decreased 0.8% from the previous spring. Data shows enrollments decreased among four-year for-profit institutions (-4.9 percent) and two-year public institutions (-2.7 percent). However, enrollments increased slightly among four-year public institutions (+0.7%) and four-year private nonprofit institutions (+2.0%).
California Children's Report Card: How Kids Are Doing in Our State and What Needs to Be Done about It
Author: Cavagnaro, Elizabeth
Date: 2014-00-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: Program Evaluation,Program Effectiveness,At Risk Students,Academic Achievement,Student Needs,Child Health,Child Welfare,Benchmarking,Reports,Child Care,Preschool Education,Early Childhood Education,Kindergarten,Elementary Secondary Education,Educational Finance,State Standards,STEM Education,Teacher Education,Educational Innovation,Educational Technology,Educational Quality,Educational Environment,Discipline,Attendance,Screening Tests,Access to Health Care,Physical Health,Mental Health,Health Insurance,Foster Care,Family Programs,School Health Services,Student Diversity,Socioeconomic Status

There is strong consensus in California and in the country around the notions of equal opportunity for all children, and giving kids a chance of having it better than their parents. The reality in California is that most families lack the means and resources to provide their children with the basic building blocks of a productive life in the 21st century. Almost half of California's children now live in low-income families. With inadequate access to high-quality early learning experiences, rigorous K-12 academics and enriching afterschool and summer programs, children growing up in lower-income families have disproportionately lower rates of high school graduation. The &quot;2014 California Children's Report Card&quot; lets everyone know how kids in California are really doing and what needs to be done about it from a public policy perspective. It covers the many education, health and child welfare issues--27 in all--that work together to determine children's well-being. Each one is defined, measured and graded--from A to F--to benchmark the past year and outline a path forward. Despite some positive recent efforts, children in California are doing very poorly overall. [This report was written with the assistance of Allyson Werner, Juanita Castillo and Margaux McFetridge. The following foundations and corporations supported portions of this report: The Atlas Family Foundation, California Community Foundation, the California Education Policy Fund--A sponsored project of Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors, Inc., The California Endowment, The California Wellness Foundation, Joseph Drown Foundation, Friedman Family Foundation, Heising-Simons Foundation, Hurlbut-Johnson Fund-An advised fund of the Silicon Valley Community Foundation, The James Irvine Foundation and The David and Lucile Packard Foundation.]
Gender Imputation
Author: National Student Clearinghouse Research Center
Date: 2013-03-07
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: Enrollment,Data,Sex,Statistical Analysis,Postsecondary Education,College Students,Validity,Public Colleges,Private Colleges,Proprietary Schools,Two Year Colleges

In late 2007, the National Student Clearinghouse (NSC) expanded its Enrollment Reporting service to include several additional data elements (commonly referred to as the &quot;A2&quot; or &quot;expanded&quot; data elements). One of these expanded data elements is student gender. Although gender is potentially important to a number of research projects, it is currently an optional data element in Clearinghouse Enrollment Reporting. Consequently, postsecondary institutions have populated this field in a limited percentage of enrollment records. However, as Figure 1 illustrates, this percentage has been growing steadily since 2007. While the NSC Research Center expects this trend to continue, in order to make immediate use of the gender data element for research, it is necessary to impute its value for the majority of Clearinghouse enrollment records. To meet this need, the Research Center developed an imputation process in which previously submitted name-gender pairs are used to determine the probability of any first name being associated with either gender. To increase the accuracy of the imputation process, it also draws on name-gender data from the Social Security Administration and the U.S. Census Bureau. The Research Center's report on Fall 2012 Current Term Enrollment Estimates, released in December 2012, marked the first application of this gender imputation process in a Clearinghouse research project.
The &quot;Phantom&quot; Collapse of Student Achievement in New York: Lessons for Educators as States Implement the Common Core
Author: Cronin, John
Date: 2014-01-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: Academic Achievement,Academic Standards,State Standards,College Readiness,Career Readiness,Reading Achievement,Mathematics Achievement,Test Score Decline,Achievement Tests,Computer Assisted Testing,Adaptive Testing,Computation,Cutting Scores,Grade 4

On August 7th, 2013, the New York State Education Commissioner, John King, announced the initial results of the state's new assessment, which was designed to measure college and career readiness relative to the Common Core Learning Standards. Commissioner King noted that the proficiency rates on these assessments were significantly lower than proficiency rates on the prior year's assessment. The observed drops in proficiency rates reflected a change in the difficulty of the proficiency standard and not a decline in student scores or performance. One important question is: Did student performance in New York actually decline between 2012 and 2013, or was it a &quot;phantom&quot; decline that was reported in the media? One way to address this question is to compare student performance across both years using the same measurement scale while holding the proficiency threshold constant. Unfortunately, reports of declines in proficiency rates created the erroneous impression of a collapse in student achievement. This was a &quot;phantom collapse,&quot; and as illustrated in the six district examples, schools with apparent declines in proficiency rates actually showed improvements in student achievement between 2012 and 2013. This New York narrative illustrates the need for educators to become data literate, and be able to coach the public when student achievement information is misrepresented, whether that occurs in the media or elsewhere. This paper concludes the &quot;phantom collapse&quot; of student achievement in New York reflects a misguided narrative of supposed school failure that does little more than feed distrust about public education, and comes at a time when educators are working to raise expectations for student learning to better prepare them to be successful throughout high school and beyond.