ethanporcaro/eric-fulltext-meta huggingface dataset:
2014 Performance Measures for Student Success
Author: North Carolina Community College System
Date: 2014-04-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Community Colleges,Academic Achievement,Measures (Individuals),Accountability,Annual Reports,College Presidents,Administrators,College Faculty,Basic Skills,High School Equivalency Programs,College English,College Mathematics,College Curriculum,Certification,College Transfer Students,Transfer Rates (College),Statistical Distributions,Educational Objectives

The Performance Measures for Student Success Report is the North Carolina Community College System's major accountability document. This annual performance report is based on data compiled from the previous year and serves to inform colleges and the public on the performance of North Carolina's 58 community colleges. In 2010, President Scott Ralls established a Performance Measures Committee comprised of college presidents, vice-presidents, faculty, and directors to develop new performance-based student success measures to go into effect in 2013. After a year of researching, drafting, and soliciting feedback from college faculty and staff on potential measures, the Committee formally presented the following eight measures to the State Board: (1) Basic Skills Student Progress; (2) GED Diploma Passing Rate; (3) Developmental Student Success Rate in College-Level English Courses; (4) Developmental Student Success Rate in College-Level Math Courses; (5) First Year Progression; (6) Curriculum Student Completion; (7) Licensure and Certification Passing Rate; and (8) College Transfer Performance. In November 2011, the State Board formally approved the Performance Measures. These measures were then submitted to the General Assembly in March 2012 and later adopted in June 2012 through Section 8.5 of S.L. 2012-142. In May 2012, President Ralls appointed a team of college presidents to a Performance Funding Committee to develop a performance funding model. One of the outcomes of this committee was the establishment of system-wide &quot;baselines&quot; and &quot;goals&quot; for each measure. Based on three years of historical data (if available) for each measure, baselines were set two standard deviations below the system mean, and the goals were set one standard deviation above the system mean. These baselines and goals remain static for three years and will be reset in the 2016 Report. This 2014 edition report utilizes the new measures, goals, and baselines. Additional performance measure tables are appended. [For the 2013 edition of this report, see ED562018.]
State Higher Education Finance FY 2014
Author: State Higher Education Executive Officers
Date: 2014-00-00
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: Higher Education,Educational Finance,State Aid,Trend Analysis,Financial Support,Income,Taxes,Tuition,Enrollment Trends,Operating Expenses,Tables (Data),Charts,Graphs,Geographic Location,Resource Allocation,Comparative Analysis

The State Higher Education Finance (SHEF) report is produced annually by the State Higher Education Executive Officers association (SHEEO) to broaden understanding of the context and consequences of multiple decisions made every year in every state in each of these areas. No single report can provide definitive answers to these broad and fundamental questions of public policy, but the SHEF report provides important context and information to help inform such decisions. The report includes: (1) An Overview and Highlights of national trends and the current status of state funding for higher education; (2) An explanation of the Measures, Methods, and Analytical Tools used in this report; (3) A description of the Revenue Sources and Uses for higher education, including state tax and nontax revenues, local tax support, tuition revenue, and the proportion of this funding available for general educational support; (4) An analysis of National Trends in Enrollment and Revenue, in particular, changes over time in the public resources available for general operating support; (5) Interstate Comparisons--Making Sense of Many Variables, using tables, charts, and graphs to compare data across states and over time; and (6) Indicators of relative State Wealth, Tax Effort, and Allocations for Higher Education, along with ways to take these factors into account when making interstate comparisons. The SHEF report provides the earliest possible review of state and local support, tuition revenue, and enrollment trends for the most recent completed fiscal year.
House Bill 1079: 2013-14 Student Enrollment Update
Author: West, Jim
Date: 2015-01-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: Public Colleges,College Students,Citizenship,Enrollment,Tuition,Undocumented Immigrants,Residence Requirements,State Legislation,Educational Legislation,Surveys,Immigration

Effective July 1, 2003, House Bill (HB) 1079 allows any student, including presumed undocumented students who meet specific criteria, to pay in-state tuition at Washington's public colleges and universities. In addition to meeting certain conditions, the affidavit states that the student will file for permanent residency at the earliest opportunity the student is eligible. The student must also indicate a willingness to engage in other activities necessary to acquire citizenship. This report presents HB 1079 Survey Results. The table and figures in the report present new affidavits submitted under HB 1079 for each year since the bill was authorized in 2003. Data is collected at the time of submission for each fall through summer quarter.
New Research on Securing Educational Excellence &amp; Equity for English Language Learners in Texas Secondary Schools. IDRA Jose A. Cardenas School Finance Fellows Program 2015 Symposium Proceedings (San Antonio, Texas, February 2, 2015)
Author: Intercultural Development Research Association
Date: 2015-06-00
Type: Collected Works - Proceedings
Subjects: English Language Learners,Equal Education,Excellence in Education,Academic Achievement,Achievement Gap,Secondary School Students,Conferences (Gatherings),Educational Quality,Educational Policy,Educational Finance,Conference Papers,Access to Education,Educational Research,Educational Improvement,Laws,Specialists,Educational Equity (Finance),Expenditure per Student,School Districts

English language learners make up the fastest growing segment of the student population, but they are one of the lowest academically performing groups of students and the achievement gap widens as students progress through school. Dr. Oscar Jimenez-Castellanos, the Intercultural Development Research Association's (IDRA's) inaugural Jose A. Cardenas School Finance Fellow, presented his research findings on securing educational equity and excellence for English language learners in Texas secondary schools at a symposium in San Antonio on February 2, 2015. In person and via livecast, the event gathered more than 80 education and community leaders, and experts in law and education research around the critical question of how secondary education quality and access for English learners can be improved. A panel of experts reflected on key themes and questions raised by the research and participants explored important implications of the research for education quality and equity for English learners in policy and practice. The following are included in the proceedings of this symposium: (1) Introduction; (2) Message from Dr. Maria &quot;Cuca&quot; Robledo Montecel, IDRA President &amp; CEO; (3) Lessons from Texas on the Relationship between School Funding and the Academic Achievement of English Language Learners--News story by the New America Foundation; (4) Status of English Language Learner Education; (5) Examining School Funding and Academic Achievement for Secondary English Language Learners in Texas--A Synthesis; (6) Synthesis of Participant Presentations and Discussion; (7) Remarks by Rogelio Saenz, Ph.D., Dean of the College of Public Policy, UTSA; (8) Examining School Funding and Academic Achievement for Secondary English Language Learners in Texas (Oscar Jimenez-Castellanos); and (9) Recommendations. An appendix contains: (1) U.S. Departments of Education and Justice Release Joint Guidance to Ensure English Learner Students Have Equal Access to High-Quality Education; and (2) Symposium Participants.
2013 Summary of Advances in Autism Spectrum Disorder Research
Author: US Department of Health and Human Services, Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee
Date: 2014-04-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Autism,Research,Etiology,Clinical Diagnosis,Incidence,Journal Articles,Pervasive Developmental Disorders,Screening Tests,Urban Areas,Infants,Eye Movements,Child Development,Pediatrics,Hispanic Americans,At Risk Persons,Physical Health,Developmental Delays,Comorbidity,Behavior Problems,Brain,Neurological Organization,Prevention,Mothers,Early Intervention,Cognitive Ability,Adults,Cost Effectiveness,Supported Employment,Foreign Countries

Each year, the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC) releases its annual list of scientific advances that represent significant progress in the field. The 20 studies selected have given new insight into the complex causes of autism and potential risk factors, studied clues that could lead to earlier diagnosis, and evaluated promising early intervention strategies. The advances also address the prevalence of ASD both in the United States and internationally, as well as the service needs of people with ASD across the lifespan. The &quot;2013 Summary of Advances&quot; provides short, plain language synopses of the top research breakthroughs selected by the IACC from a pool of peer-reviewed articles nominated by the members. Articles are grouped according to the questions of the &quot;IACC Strategic Plan for ASD Research.&quot; Citations for the articles selected for the &quot;Summary of Advances,&quot; as well as a complete listing of those nominated, are included at the end of the document.
VA Education Benefits: VA Should Strengthen Its Efforts to Help Veterans Make Informed Education Choices. Report to Congressional Requesters. GAO-14-324
Author: Emrey-Arras, Melissa
Date: 2014-05-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: Public Agencies,Veterans,Veterans Education,Postsecondary Education,Student Recruitment,Interviews,Web Sites,National Surveys,Student Surveys,Content Analysis,School Choice,Educational Counseling,Outreach Programs,Access to Information,Federal Legislation

In fiscal year 2013, VA provided over $12 billion in benefits for veterans' postsecondary education; however, questions have been raised as to whether some schools are receiving these funds as a result of inappropriate recruiting practices. GAO was asked to examine issues related to schools' recruitment of veterans. This report examines (1) how selected schools recruit veterans, (2) veterans' school search and recruiting experiences, and (3) VA's actions to help veterans make informed decisions and to identify inappropriate recruiting practices. For the first question, GAO interviewed officials from 9 schools and reviewed websites of 30 additional schools; both groups were selected for variation in sector (public, nonprofit, and for-profit) and other criteria. For the second question, GAO surveyed a nationally representative group of student veterans, producing results generalizable to the student veteran population. For the third question, GAO reviewed relevant federal requirements and agency documents and interviewed agency officials. GAO also spoke with veteran and higher education organizations. GAO recommends that VA improve outreach and accessibility of its educational counseling services and more consistently develop and communicate realistic timelines as it implements initiatives based on federal requirements. VA agreed with GAO's recommendations and noted its current efforts to improve its outreach and planning efforts. The Department of Education had no comments on our findings or recommendations. The following are appended: (1) Objectives, Scope, and Methodology; (2) Survey of Veterans' Educational Decisions; (3) Comments from the Department of Veterans Affairs; (4) Comments from the Department of Education; and (5) GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments. [In addition to the GAO contact, Melissa Emrey-Arras, Michelle St. Pierre (Assistant Director), Carl Barden, Deborah Bland, Kathleen van Gelder, Mark M. Glickman, Nathan Gottfried, Kirsten Lauber, Theresa Lo, Ashley McCall, Sheila McCoy, Amanda Miller, John Mingus, Andrew Nelson, Mimi Nguyen, Anna Maria Ortiz, Carl Ramirez, Mark Ward, James Whitcomb, and Craig Winslow made key contributions to this report.]
Budget Response: Fiscal Year 2012
Author: Bissonnette, Jocelyn, Ed.
Date: 2011-00-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: Educational Finance,Budgets,Federal Aid,Early Childhood Education,Elementary Secondary Education,Vocational Education,Adult Education,Lifelong Learning,Higher Education,Educational Research,Federal Legislation,Educational Legislation,Disabilities,Federal Programs,Grants,Student Loan Programs

The Committee for Education Funding (CEF), a coalition of over 85 national education associations and institutions from preschool to postgraduate education, applauds President Obama's Fiscal Year 2012 budget for recognizing the importance of investing in education to our nation's economic growth and competitiveness. Within a constrained fiscal environment and a five-year freeze on discretionary spending, the budget proposes a $7.5 billion, 10.7 percent increase in overall discretionary spending for programs in the Department of Education ($2 billion [+4.3 percent] excluding Pell grants). It maintains the $5,550 Pell grant maximum award and Supplemental Education Opportunity Grants; invests in early childhood education programs through a $866 million increase for Head Start and $350 million for the Early Challenge Learning Fund; increases funding for Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) programs by 6.9 percent; and provides additional resources for Title I, school improvement grants, IDEA, Race to the Top, Investing in Innovation, Promise Neighborhoods, magnet schools, after school, teacher preparation, TRIO, college completion, and education research. While CEF is pleased with the proposed education increases it has concerns with some specific proposals in the budget. The Administration's budget proposes to consolidate 38 ESEA programs into 11 new flexible funding streams. While such consolidations will be the subject of the ESEA reauthorization, from a budgetary perspective CEF believes that any program consolidations should not result in the elimination of essential education functions such as improving teacher preparation at institutions of higher education or providing K-12 students with sufficient specialized instructional support personnel. This report contains the following sections: (1) Charts and Graphs (Joel Packer, Ed.; and Tom Zembar, Ed.); (2) The Foundation for Success--Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education (Earl Hadley, Ed.; Amanda Lowe, Ed.; and Elizabeth Rorick, Ed.); (3) Education, Careers, and Lifelong Learning (Jamie Baxter, Ed.); (4) The Gateway to Opportunity--Higher Education (Stephanie Giesecke, Ed.; and Carolyn Henrich, Ed.); (5) Forging Success--Educational Research, Statistics, and Improvement (Gerald Sroufe, Ed.); and (6) Education-Related Programs--Meeting the Human Needs of America's Children (Roberto Viramontes, Ed.).
Race to the Top: Education Could Better Support Grantees and Help Them Address Capacity Challenges. Report to the Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives. GAO-15-295
Author: Nowicki, Jacqueline M.
Date: 2015-04-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: Federal Legislation,Educational Legislation,Federal Programs,Federal Aid,Public Agencies,Grants,Educational Finance,Educational Change,Capacity Building,Sustainability,State Surveys,School Districts,Interviews,Technical Assistance,Rural Schools,Guidance,Expertise,Elementary Secondary Education

The Department of Education (Education) created Race To the Top (RTT) under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. From 2010 through 2011, Education awarded $4 billion in competitive grant funds to 19 states to reform core areas of K-12 education. RTT states also committed to building capacity to implement and sustain reforms. GAO and others previously reported that capacity challenges had adversely affected RTT implementation and could hinder efforts to sustain the reforms. GAO was asked to further examine these challenges. This report examines: (1) the effect of RTT on reform and capacity challenges states and districts faced, (2) how helpful Education's assistance was to states in building and sustaining capacity, and (3) lessons learned that could inform future reform efforts. GAO surveyed all 19 RTT states and a generalizable sample of RTT districts; held an expert panel; reviewed RTT applications, progress reports, relevant federal laws and regulations, and literature; and interviewed officials from seven selected states and districts, chosen based on survey responses. GAO selected expert panelists based on research or experience with RTT, capacity issues, and federal grants. GAO recommends that Education incorporate into its coordinated policies technical assistance grantees found most useful, target assistance to rural districts, and issue guidance to help states and auditors with funding flexibilities. Education did not explicitly agree or disagree with GAO's recommendations, but outlined steps to address many aspects of them. The following are appended: (1) Objectives, Scope, and Methodology; (2) Race to the Top (RTT) Grant Awards by Phase; (3) Race to the Top State Selection Criteria; (4) Capacity Challenges by Race to the Top Reform Area and Type of Capacity, as Reported by States and Estimated by Districts; (5) List of Participants on GAO's Panel on Implications of Race to the Top Capacity Challenges; (6) Comments from the U.S. Department of Education; (7) GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments. [In addition to GAO contact Jacqueline M. Nowicki, Elizabeth Morrison (Assistant Director), Jamila Jones Kennedy (Analyst-in-Charge), Sheranda Campbell, Kathryn O'Dea Lamas, Amanda Parker, and Stacy Spence made significant contributions to this report. Assistance, expertise, and guidance were provided by David Chrisinger, Nancy Donovan, Alexander Galuten, Catherine Hurley, Jill Lacey, Jean McSween, Mark Ramage, Walter Vance, and Mimi Nguyen.]
Do Online Students Exhibit Different Learning Styles
Author: Hausler, Joel
Date: 2007-00-00
Type: Journal Articles
Subjects: Online Courses,Electronic Learning,Cognitive Style,Student Characteristics,Online Surveys,Conventional Instruction,Active Learning,Reflection,Sequential Learning,Global Approach,Perception,Intuition,Visual Learning,Verbal Learning,College Students,Student Surveys

We examined the relationship between learning styles and student type. This research seeks to examine if online students exhibit different learning styles from onsite students; and, if so, what accommodations relating to learning style differences may be made for online students? Students (N = 80) were asked to complete an online survey in order to gain information surrounding the reasoning behind choosing classroom type, i.e. on site or online, and learning style. Students were evaluated to determine their Solomon-Felder Learning Style. Students were characterized active, reflective, sequential, global, sensing, intuitive, visual and verbal learning type. The information presented will allow for better accommodations and greater overall effectiveness of online courses. A copy of the Online Class Survey Instrument is appended.
Higher Education State Funding Trends and Policies on Affordability. Report to the Chairman, Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, United States Senate. GAO-15-151
Author: Emrey-Arras, Melissa
Date: 2014-12-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: Higher Education,Educational Finance,Public Colleges,State Aid,Tuition,Student Costs,State Policy,Educational Policy,Financial Support,Trend Analysis,Incentives,Student Financial Aid

There is widespread concern that the rising costs of higher education are making college unaffordable for many students and their families. Federal and state support is central to promoting college affordability; however, persistent state budget constraints have limited funding for public colleges. GAO was asked to study state policies affecting affordability and identify approaches to encourage states to make college more affordable. This report examines, among other things, how state financial support and tuition have changed at public colleges over the past decade. It also examines how the federal government works with states to improve college affordability and what additional approaches are available for doing so. In conducting this work, GAO analyzed trends in state funding for public colleges, tuition, and state student aid using data from the U.S. Department of Education for all public sector colleges from fiscal years 2003 through 2012, the most recent data available at the time of this study. GAO also identified academic studies on state higher education policies and affordability published since 2011 and interviewed 25 academic experts and organizations in the fields of higher education or state policy. Finally, GAO reviewed Education programs and proposals and obtained perspectives from experts and organizations to identify approaches the federal government could use to incentivize state action. GAO does not make recommendations in this report. The following are appended: (1) Objectives, Scope, and Methodology; (2) Trends in State Grant Aid to Students and Sources of Revenue for Public Colleges; (3) Bibliography; (4) Related GAO Products; and (5) GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments. [In addition to the GAO contact, Melissa Emrey-Arras, Meeta Engle (Assistant Director), Charline Gay, Amy Moran Lowe, Jean McSween, John Mingus, Katherine Morris, Amrita Sen, and Jack Wang made significant contributions to this report. Also contributing to this report were James Bennett, Deborah Bland, Jessica Botsford, David Chrisinger, Peter del Toro, Ashley McCall, Sheila McCoy, Susan Offutt, Michelle Sager, Stephen Sanford, Anjali Tekchandani, and Greg Whitney.]
Arizona's Education Financing: Elementary and Secondary Education: 2002-2011
Author: Hunting, Dan
Date: 2013-12-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: Elementary Secondary Education,Educational Finance,Financial Support,State Aid,Budgets,Expenditure per Student,Federal Aid,National Competency Tests,Grade 4,Grade 8,Mathematics Achievement,Reading Achievement

Arizona has grown rapidly over the years and our education system has grown in step with the population. But increasing the total budget for education doesn't mean that we have directed more resources to each student. The numbers show that Arizona has one of the lowest per-pupil funding rates in the country. Parties of one faction or another argue endlessly about which numbers to use in comparing Arizona to other states, or even whether such comparisons are possible. What is indisputable is that Arizona ranks in the bottom tier of states in both education spending and in student achievement and that we have made substantial cuts in our funding of both K-12 and higher education since the beginning of the Great Recession. [This report was presented Nov. 19, 2013, at the &quot;State of our State&quot; Public Policy Choices for Arizona Conference.]