ethanporcaro/eric-fulltext-meta huggingface dataset:
Advancing Postsecondary Opportunity, Completion, and Productivity: Essential Performance Indicators for South Dakota and Selected Peer States. 2012-2013
Author: Midwestern Higher Education Compact
Date: 2014-00-00
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: Postsecondary Education,Educational Indicators,Enrollment,Graduation Rate,College Readiness,Efficiency,School Effectiveness,Financial Support,Educational Finance,Educational Quality,Educational Policy,Two Year Colleges,Public Colleges,Proprietary Schools,Preschool Education,Grade 8,Elementary Secondary Education,Older Adults,Ethnicity,Race,Low Income Groups,Expenditure per Student,Family Income,Debt (Financial),Student Loan Programs,Paying for College,Study Abroad,State Aid,College Bound Students,College Students

This report portrays various performance indicators that are intended to facilitate an assessment of the postsecondary education system in South Dakota. Descriptive statistics are presented for South Dakota and five other comparison states as well as the nation. Comparison states were selected according to the degree of similarity of population characteristics, capital advantages, and market conditions. Indicators in the first section, &quot;Target Outcomes,&quot; assess progress towards the key goal of increasing the number of people who enroll in college and complete a high-quality degree as efficiently as possible. The second section, &quot;Leverage Points,&quot; provides indicators relevant to intermediate outcomes associated with postsecondary degree production, including academic preparation, affordability, and institutional effectiveness. The final section, &quot;Policy Instruments,&quot; focuses on some of the system resources and policies needed to influence leverage points and target outcomes. The following are appended: (1) Enrollment in International Perspective; (2) Educational Attainment in International Perspective; (3) Weights Used for Performance Scores; and (4) Endnotes.
Advancing Postsecondary Opportunity, Completion, and Productivity: Essential Performance Indicators for Ohio and Selected Peer States. 2012-2013
Author: Midwestern Higher Education Compact
Date: 2014-00-00
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: Postsecondary Education,Educational Indicators,Enrollment,Graduation Rate,College Readiness,Efficiency,School Effectiveness,Financial Support,Educational Finance,Educational Quality,Educational Policy,Two Year Colleges,Public Colleges,Private Colleges,Proprietary Schools,Preschool Education,Grade 8,Elementary Secondary Education,Older Adults,Ethnicity,Race,Low Income Groups,Expenditure per Student,Family Income,Debt (Financial),Student Loan Programs,Paying for College,Study Abroad,State Aid,College Bound Students,College Students

This report portrays various performance indicators that are intended to facilitate an assessment of the postsecondary education system in Ohio. Descriptive statistics are presented for Ohio and five other comparison states as well as the nation. Comparison states were selected according to the degree of similarity of population characteristics, capital advantages, and market conditions. Indicators in the first section, &quot;Target Outcomes,&quot; assess progress towards the key goal of increasing the number of people who enroll in college and complete a high-quality degree as efficiently as possible. The second section, &quot;Leverage Points,&quot; provides indicators relevant to intermediate outcomes associated with postsecondary degree production, including academic preparation, affordability, and institutional effectiveness. The final section, &quot;Policy Instruments,&quot; focuses on some of the system resources and policies needed to influence leverage points and target outcomes. The following are appended: (1) Enrollment in International Perspective; (2) Educational Attainment in International Perspective; (3) Weights Used for Performance Scores; and (4) Endnotes.
Advancing Postsecondary Opportunity, Completion, and Productivity: Essential Performance Indicators for North Dakota and Selected Peer States. 2012-2013
Author: Midwestern Higher Education Compact
Date: 2014-00-00
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: Postsecondary Education,Educational Indicators,Enrollment,Graduation Rate,College Readiness,Efficiency,School Effectiveness,Financial Support,Educational Finance,Educational Quality,Educational Policy,Two Year Colleges,Public Colleges,Private Colleges,Proprietary Schools,Preschool Education,Grade 8,Elementary Secondary Education,Older Adults,Ethnicity,Race,Low Income Groups,Expenditure per Student,Family Income,Debt (Financial),Student Loan Programs,Paying for College,Study Abroad,State Aid,College Bound Students,College Students

This report portrays various performance indicators that are intended to facilitate an assessment of the postsecondary education system in North Dakota. Descriptive statistics are presented for North Dakota and five other comparison states as well as the nation. Comparison states were selected according to the degree of similarity of population characteristics, capital advantages, and market conditions. Indicators in the first section, &quot;Target Outcomes,&quot; assess progress towards the key goal of increasing the number of people who enroll in college and complete a high-quality degree as efficiently as possible. The second section, &quot;Leverage Points,&quot; provides indicators relevant to intermediate outcomes associated with postsecondary degree production, including academic preparation, affordability, and institutional effectiveness. The final section, &quot;Policy Instruments,&quot; focuses on some of the system resources and policies needed to influence leverage points and target outcomes. The following are appended: (1) Enrollment in International Perspective; (2) Educational Attainment in International Perspective; (3) Weights Used for Performance Scores; and (4) Endnotes.
Advancing Postsecondary Opportunity, Completion, and Productivity: Essential Performance Indicators for Indiana and Selected Peer States. 2012-2013
Author: Midwestern Higher Education Compact
Date: 2014-00-00
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: Postsecondary Education,Educational Indicators,Enrollment,Graduation Rate,College Readiness,Efficiency,School Effectiveness,Financial Support,Educational Finance,Educational Quality,Two Year Colleges,Public Colleges,Private Colleges,Proprietary Schools,Preschool Education,Grade 8,Elementary Secondary Education,Older Adults,Ethnicity,Race,Low Income Groups,Expenditure per Student,Family Income,Debt (Financial),Student Loan Programs,Paying for College,Study Abroad,State Aid,Educational Policy,College Bound Students,College Students

This report portrays various performance indicators that are intended to facilitate an assessment of the postsecondary education system in Indiana. Descriptive statistics are presented for Indiana and five other comparison states as well as the nation. Comparison states were selected according to the degree of similarity of population characteristics, capital advantages, and market conditions. Indicators in the first section, &quot;Target Outcomes,&quot; assess progress towards the key goal of increasing the number of people who enroll in college and complete a high-quality degree as efficiently as possible. The second section, &quot;Leverage Points,&quot; provides indicators relevant to intermediate outcomes associated with postsecondary degree production, including academic preparation, affordability, and institutional effectiveness. The final section, &quot;Policy Instruments,&quot; focuses on some of the system resources and policies needed to influence leverage points and target outcomes. The following are appended: (1) Enrollment in International Perspective; (2) Educational Attainment in International Perspective; (3) Weights Used for Performance Scores; and (4) Endnotes.
Advancing Postsecondary Opportunity, Completion, and Productivity: Essential Performance Indicators for Kansas and Selected Peer States. 2012-2013
Author: Midwestern Higher Education Compact
Date: 2014-00-00
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: Postsecondary Education,Educational Indicators,Enrollment,Graduation Rate,College Readiness,Efficiency,School Effectiveness,Financial Support,Educational Finance,Educational Quality,Two Year Colleges,Public Colleges,Private Colleges,Proprietary Schools,Preschool Education,Grade 8,Elementary Secondary Education,Older Adults,Ethnicity,Race,Low Income Groups,Expenditure per Student,Family Income,Debt (Financial),Student Loan Programs,Paying for College,Study Abroad,State Aid,Educational Policy,College Bound Students,College Students

This report portrays various performance indicators that are intended to facilitate an assessment of the postsecondary education system in Kansas. Descriptive statistics are presented for Kansas and five other comparison states as well as the nation. Comparison states were selected according to the degree of similarity of population characteristics, capital advantages, and market conditions. Indicators in the first section, &quot;Target Outcomes,&quot; assess progress towards the key goal of increasing the number of people who enroll in college and complete a high-quality degree as efficiently as possible. The second section, &quot;Leverage Points,&quot; provides indicators relevant to intermediate outcomes associated with postsecondary degree production, including academic preparation, affordability, and institutional effectiveness. The final section, &quot;Policy Instruments,&quot; focuses on some of the system resources and policies needed to influence leverage points and target outcomes. The following are appended: (1) Enrollment in International Perspective; (2) Educational Attainment in International Perspective; (3) Weights Used for Performance Scores; and (4) Endnotes.
Considerations for Consortia as States Transition Away from AA-MAS. NCEO Brief. Number 7
Author: National Center on Educational Outcomes
Date: 2014-02-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Alternative Assessment,Academic Achievement,Academic Standards,State Standards,Inclusion,Low Achievement,Field Tests,Testing Accommodations,Data Collection,Elementary Secondary Education,Consortia,Educational Assessment

States with an alternate assessment based on modified achievement standards (AA-MAS) that received a flexibility waiver from some of the requirements of No Child Left Behind are required to phase out their use of this assessment. And, on August 23, 2013, the U.S. Department of Education published a proposed rollback of regulation that allowed the AA-MAS. Not all states developed an AA-MAS. Sixteen states offered this optional assessment between 2011 and 2013. Many, but not all of these states, also belonged to one of the two Race to the Top Assessment (RTTA) consortia that are developing new general assessments--the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) and the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (Smarter Balanced). This Brief addresses the need for consortia to assist their member states in moving away from the AA-MAS. It focuses on key considerations for consortia as they address the inclusion of low-performing students in all member states, informed by the lessons learned from the AA-MAS. Topics highlighted in this brief are: including low-performing students in field test designs, customizing non-summative assessments to include low-performing students, and collecting and examining data on this group of students. [Contributors to the writing of this Brief were Laurene Christensen, Sheryl Lazarus, Vitaliy Shyyan, and Martha Thurlow.]
Including Students with Disabilities in Common Non-Summative Assessments. NCEO Brief. Number 6
Author: National Center on Educational Outcomes
Date: 2012-07-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: Student Evaluation,Disabilities,Measurement,Test Construction,Adaptive Testing,Formative Evaluation,Benchmarking,Diagnostic Tests,Design,Student Participation,Testing Accommodations,Evaluation Methods

Inclusive large-scale assessments have become the norm in states across the U.S. Participation rates of students with disabilities in these assessments have increased dramatically since the mid-1990s. As consortia of states move toward the development and implementation of assessment systems that include both non-summative assessments and summative assessments, ensuring that all assessments in the system appropriately include all students is a priority. Non-summative assessments, as used in this Brief, include interim, benchmark, diagnostic, and formative assessments. This Brief addresses the need for the Race-to-the-Top Assessment Consortia to develop an inclusive approach to their non-summative assessments, including their optional interim assessments. Consideration should be given to: (a) the implementation of universal design principles; (b) the development of clear participation criteria and guidelines; and (c) accommodation policies that account for good testing practices, embedded features of technology-based assessments, and additional accommodations. This Brief encourages the Consortia to build on what has been learned from inclusive large-scale assessments. [Contributors to the writing of this Brief were Laurene Christensen, Kamarrie Davis, Sheryl Lazarus, Ross Moen, and Martha Thurlow.]
Forum on Addressing Performance Gaps of Low-Performing Students: Implications for Assessment and Instruction
Author: Warren, S.
Date: 2013-00-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Achievement Gap,Low Achievement,Disabilities,English Language Learners,Student Evaluation,Instruction,Conferences (Gatherings),Elementary Secondary Education,Educational Strategies,Formative Evaluation,Technology Uses in Education

Sixty-two individuals representing sixteen states, three school districts, eleven testing and testing-related companies, and eleven other organizations participated in a forum on June 19, 2013, in National Harbor, Maryland, to discuss the performance gaps of low-performing students and their implications for assessment and instruction. The forum was a pre-session to the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) National Conference on Student Assessment (NCSA), and was a collaboration of the Assessing Special Education Students (ASES) State Collaborative on Assessment and Student Standards (SCASS) and the National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO). A primary goal of the forum was to provide the opportunity for participants to share perspectives on the topic. The diversity of low-performing students makes it imperative that teams work together to address low-performing students&apos; assessment and instructional needs. As the nation adopts the Common Core State Standards or other 21st century standards and moves toward the implementation of more rigorous assessments of those standards, the challenges of low performance will continue and increase. Although this report summarizes the introductory information provided to forum participants, its main purpose is to describe the facilitated forum discussions themselves, and the results of the consensus-building process. Summaries of the discussions were developed from notes taken by notetakers, and action plans were synthesized through the consensus-building process. This report first summarizes the introductory material provided to participants, and then presents a summary of the points made during each discussion session. In addition, the results of the consensus building process on action steps are presented. Participants were encouraged to comment and discuss freely, with assurances that no individual&apos;s name, nor any state, company, or organization names would be attached to comments that were made. Complete anonymity of statements was assured. This led to frank and open conversations.
Performance of Special Education Students: Implications for Common State Assessments. NCEO Brief. Number 5
Author: National Center on Educational Outcomes
Date: 2012-01-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Special Education,Educational Assessment,Measurement,Performance,Academic Achievement,Scores,Achievement Gains,Elementary School Students,Middle School Students,High School Students

The performance of special education students on state assessments has been the subject of much discussion and concern. A common belief is that all special education students perform poorly on state assessments. There are many misperceptions about the performance of students with disabilities. It is important for the Race-to-the-Top Assessment Consortia to recognize these misperceptions and their implications for common assessments. This Brief presents information on the range in performance of special education students. It also highlights the changes in the performance of this subgroup over time. [Contributors to the writing of this Brief were Kamarrie Davis, Sheryl Lazarus, and Martha Thurlow.]
Successfully Transitioning from the AA-MAS to the General Assessment. NCEO Policy Directions. Number 22
Author: Lazarus, Sheryl
Date: 2014-02-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Alternative Assessment,Academic Achievement,Academic Standards,Low Achievement,Disabilities,Inclusion,Educational Assessment,Access to Education,Guidelines,Academic Accommodations (Disabilities),Faculty Development,Elementary Secondary Education

Federal policy initiatives such as the flexibility waivers for accountability are requiring that states transition away from the use of an alternate assessment based on modified achievement standards (AA-MAS). It is expected that those students who had participated in that assessment will instead participate in the state's general assessment (or a Race-to-the-Top consortium assessment if the state belongs to one). It is important that this transition be successful. Much has been learned through the development of the AA-MAS and its implementation. These lessons learned form the basis for ensuring the successful transition from the AA-MAS to the general assessment. Indeed, the lessons learned from the AA-MAS provide important information for all states as they strive to ensure that their general assessments are appropriate for a broad range of students. This document discusses the benefits and challenges and provides suggestions for a successful transition.
Multi-Attribute Consensus Building Tool
Author: Shyyan, Vitaliy
Date: 2013-09-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Statistical Analysis,Opinions,Group Unity,Methods,Decision Making,Scaling,Groups

The Multi-Attribute Consensus Building (MACB) method is a quantitative approach for determining a group&apos;s opinion about the importance of each item (strategy, decision, recommendation, policy, priority, etc.) on a list (Vanderwood, &amp; Erickson, 1994). This process enables a small or large group of participants to generate and discuss a set of items, weight the importance of each item, and debrief their weightings to either reach consensus or identify the sources of differences in participants&apos; perceptions. The MACB method can be used in small or large group settings where there is a need to prioritize items based on participants&apos; opinions. Although this method stimulates consensus building through the use of participatory decision making and weighting the importance of items, it is important to be aware that it is not always easy to reach consensus. Participants&apos; perceptions of items can remain unchanged even though they have participated in a consensus-building process. According to Lewis and Johnson (2000), MACB is appropriate when judgments are required as part of a decision-making process. They note that MACB &quot;structures the decision process for an individual or group of stakeholders who rank several alternatives.&quot; MACB requires a comparison of two or more alternatives. This report provides steps for introducing MACB to a group of any size, using MACB with a small group (4-12 people), and using MACB with a large group (more than 12 people).
Advancing Postsecondary Opportunity, Completion, and Productivity: Essential Performance Indicators for Illinois and Selected Peer States. 2012-2013
Author: Midwestern Higher Education Compact
Date: 2014-00-00
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: Postsecondary Education,Educational Indicators,Enrollment,Graduation Rate,College Readiness,Efficiency,School Effectiveness,Financial Support,Educational Finance,Educational Quality,Educational Policy,Two Year Colleges,Public Colleges,Private Colleges,Proprietary Schools,Preschool Education,Grade 8,Elementary Secondary Education,Older Adults,Ethnicity,Race,Low Income Groups,Expenditure per Student,Family Income,Debt (Financial),Student Loan Programs,Paying for College,Study Abroad,State Aid,College Bound Students,College Students

This report portrays various performance indicators that are intended to facilitate an assessment of the postsecondary education system in Illinois. Descriptive statistics are presented for Illinois and five other comparison states as well as the nation. Comparison states were selected according to the degree of similarity of population characteristics, capital advantages, and market conditions. Indicators in the first section, &quot;Target Outcomes,&quot; assess progress towards the key goal of increasing the number of people who enroll in college and complete a high-quality degree as efficiently as possible. The second section, &quot;Leverage Points,&quot; provides indicators relevant to intermediate outcomes associated with postsecondary degree production, including academic preparation, affordability, and institutional effectiveness. The final section, &quot;Policy Instruments,&quot; focuses on some of the system resources and policies needed to influence leverage points and target outcomes. The following are appended: (1) Enrollment in International Perspective; (2) Educational Attainment in International Perspective; (3) Weights Used for Performance Scores; and (4) Endnotes.
Advancing Postsecondary Opportunity, Completion, and Productivity: Essential Performance Indicators for Minnesota and Selected Peer States. 2012-2013
Author: Midwestern Higher Education Compact
Date: 2014-00-00
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: Postsecondary Education,Educational Indicators,Enrollment,Graduation Rate,College Readiness,Efficiency,School Effectiveness,Financial Support,Educational Finance,Educational Quality,Educational Policy,Two Year Colleges,Public Colleges,Private Colleges,Proprietary Schools,Preschool Education,Grade 8,Elementary Secondary Education,Older Adults,Ethnicity,Race,Low Income Groups,Expenditure per Student,Family Income,Debt (Financial),Student Loan Programs,Paying for College,Study Abroad,State Aid,College Bound Students,College Students

This report portrays various performance indicators that are intended to facilitate an assessment of the postsecondary education system in Minnesota. Descriptive statistics are presented for Minnesota and five other comparison states as well as the nation. Comparison states were selected according to the degree of similarity of population characteristics, capital advantages, and market conditions. Indicators in the first section, &quot;Target Outcomes,&quot; assess progress towards the key goal of increasing the number of people who enroll in college and complete a high-quality degree as efficiently as possible. The second section, &quot;Leverage Points,&quot; provides indicators relevant to intermediate outcomes associated with postsecondary degree production, including academic preparation, affordability, and institutional effectiveness. The final section, &quot;Policy Instruments,&quot; focuses on some of the system resources and policies needed to influence leverage points and target outcomes. The following are appended: (1) Enrollment in International Perspective; (2) Educational Attainment in International Perspective; (3) Weights Used for Performance Scores; and (4) Endnotes.