Search

The Federal STEM Education Strategic plan recognizes the importance of building computational literacy today. This document is aligned to the Computational Literacy Interagency Working Group (IWGCL) objectives to: (1) develop a common operational definition; (2) identify existing research on computational literacy; and (3) identify existing research-based model programs, content and curriculum, best practices and other measurable quantities that inform successful examples of building computational literacy in STEM education in both federal and non-federally sponsored research and programs. The intended audience of this report is federal agencies and other STEM education stakeholders, to support the understanding and implementation of computational literacy in STEM education.

This table captures how states and the District of Columbia have used statute and/or regulations to provide institutions with additional guidance and requirements regarding campus sexual misconduct policy. Each data point presents information on a distinct component of that policy, such as reporting processes, victim support services, and prevention and bystander training. The table shows at least 24 states have a campus sexual misconduct policy in statute and/or regulation, and there is significant variation between what those policies contain (Maine statute creating this requirement will go into effect by July 2023). Among other data points captured, at least seven state policies in statute and/or regulation define affirmative consent and at least three states require institutions to develop their own definition; at least 15 allow amnesty for individuals reporting instances of campus sexual misconduct; and at least 22 address support systems for victims. [View the full "50-State Comparison: Postsecondary Campus Safety," here: https://www.ecs.org/50-state-comparison-postsecondary-campus-safety-2022/.]

This technical assistance paper provides policy and guidance to individuals with test administration responsibilities in adult education programs. The Florida assessment policies and guidelines presented in this technical assessment paper are appropriate for state and federal reporting. Therefore, guidance and procedures regarding the selection and use of appropriate student assessment are included in this technical assistance paper. Additionally, the following important information for adult education programs is reviewed: (1) Definition of key terms and acronyms; (2) Selection of appropriate assessments by student and program type; (3) Appropriate student placement into program and instructional level; (4) Verification of student learning gains, Educational Functioning Level and/or program completion; (5) Accommodations for students with disabilities and other special needs; (6) Assessment procedures for Distance Education; and (7) Training for all staff who administer the standardized assessments. [For the 2021-2022 report, see ED616047.]

The National Center for Leadership in Intensive Intervention (NCLII), a consortium funded by the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), prepares special education leaders to become experts in research on intensive intervention for students with disabilities who have persistent and severe academic (e.g., reading and math) and behavioral difficulties. By the end of the first year of their program, scholars in each cohort work in cross-institutional collaborative groups to create an Intensive Intervention Practice Guide. In each guide, scholars identify an approach to intensive intervention for a select population of students with disabilities, describe the existing evidence base behind it, and discuss the next steps in research needed to improve the understanding of designing and delivering the intervention. The "Intensive Intervention Practice Guides" are created for practitioners as well as faculty engaged in instructing pre- and in-service teachers. This practice guide considers mathematics language to include all terminology with mathematics-specific definitions, including those that also have alternative meanings. Given the complex language demands embedded in learning mathematics, it is essential to provide students with high-quality mathematics-language instruction. Emergent bilingual (EB) students, particularly those who exhibit mathematics difficulty (MD), may also benefit from tailored mathematics-language instruction. This practice guide focuses specifically on EB students with MD and outlines evidence and research gaps on mathematics-language instruction. This guide specifically describes how to support mathematics-language development in the context of word-problem solving. This practice guide can serve as an extension to Zagata et al.'s guide (ED619745) by offering additional insight into the specific needs of EB students.

Jobs and the labor market have changed dramatically. The COVID-19 pandemic put millions of people, across all industries, out of work and disproportionately impacted workers of color, women, and workers without a college degree. This toolkit provides a map for how states that are looking to improve credential quality and transparency can use the quality non-degree credential framework outlined by National Skills Coalition and the linked open data network, common description language, and publishing platform created by Credential Engine. By combining both efforts -- quality and transparency -- states can guarantee that students, workers, and adults in career transition receive a consistent signal about which high-quality skills training programs will lead to employment, so that they can meet their education and earnings goals. This toolkit provides stakeholders with: (1) A brief discussion of each criterion required to define quality non-degree credentials; (2) Key questions to move each criterion from definition into action; (3) A description of how each criterion can be described using the Credential Transparency Description Language (CTDL); (4) A list of additional resources that can be used to support the understanding of each quality criterion; and (5) Examples of policy recommendations that can support quality credential and transparency efforts, and opportunities to leverage existing policies to advance these efforts. This toolkit provides comprehensive information for states, and other stakeholders, who are interested in learning about credential quality and transparency. For stakeholders who already have familiarity with either credential quality or transparency efforts, this toolkit demonstrates the combined power of both efforts. [This toolkit was produced in partnership with Credential Engine.]

This toolkit helps design teams engage in this process of implementing the "Design for Equity in Higher Education" model. For each phase of the model, this toolkit provides a short description and offers some questions and suggestions to guide practice. [For the companion report, "Design for Equity in Higher Education," see ED615816.]

The population of English learners (ELs) in K-12 schools continues to grow. Between the 2009-10 and 2014-15 school years, the percentage of English learners increased in over half of the states, and in 2017, English learners made up 10.1% of the total student population. Research suggests that in their transition to English, non-native speakers fall behind academically, which can intensify the longer a student remains in an English learner program. State education leaders are mindful of this and have implemented policies to identify, serve and reclassify English learners as they become proficient. This resource provides a national comparison of EL policies in all states. The information herein was gathered from state statute and regulation. In the cases where statute or regulation specified that definitions were determined by the department of education's EL guidebooks or used the federal definition, this is noted. The state-specific term for English learners is included along with the definition. The definition is taken directly from the source with minor edits for readability. [View the full "50-State Comparison on English Learner Policies" here https://www.ecs.org/50-state-comparison-english-learner-policies/.]

Recent federal policy changes have placed new requirements on states to demonstrate and document their efforts to improve access to high-quality early care and education (ECE), and have made clear the urgent need for a shared understanding of this concept. This guidebook was developed to address the need for developing a common understanding and approach to measuring access. This Guidebook is intended to support states' efforts to assess the reach and effectiveness of their policy initiatives aimed at expanding ECE access. The Guidebook provides information in four sections: (1) Clarifying and Defining Access; (2) Describing the Indicators of Access; (3) Measuring the Indicators of Access; and (4) Identifying ECE Access Datasets and Sources. The goal of this Guidebook is to spark dialogue among policymakers, researchers and advocates about the importance of conceptualizing ECE access as a multi-dimensional concept and to propose innovative strategies for measuring and tracking progress toward improving access.

There is no question that students who experience homelessness, like all students, are entitled to be educated. A federal law, known as the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, requires states to provide homeless children and youth with the same access to free appropriate public education as is available to other students. The Act also requires states to review and revise barriers to the identification, enrollment, attendance or success in school of homeless students, to avoid the segregation of homeless students from the mainstream school environment, and to provide access to the education and services needed to ensure that homeless students have an opportunity to meet the same challenging academic achievement standards to which all students are held. The federal Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), aimed at ensuring all students access to a high-quality education, requires states and local school districts to annually publish data about the academic achievement of various subgroups of students; homeless students are now a separate subgroup for which such data (including high school graduation rates) must be reported annually, enhancing the accountability of school districts serving these students. This publication is designed to help parents, guardians, caregivers, and youth understand the circumstances that are considered "homelessness" under the school enrollment laws and the legal concepts, procedures, and rights involved in disputes over the enrollment of homeless students in local public schools. This publication provides useful information for parents whose children have been enrolled in a school district, but who are experiencing homelessness. It is also intended to be of assistance to homeless parents whose children are not currently enrolled in school, as well as to homeless youth not living with a parent or guardian ("unaccompanied youth"). [For an older version of this report published in 2005, "Education Rights of Homeless Students: A Guide for Advocates," see ED504916.]

Student graduation from high school with a regular high school diploma is an important indicator of school success and one of the most significant indicators of student college and career readiness. In addition, there are substantial economic benefits to high school completion. For example, according to the U.S. Department of Education's National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), the employment rate for young adults who had completed high school (67 percent) was higher than the employment rate for those who had not finished high school (51 percent) in 2015. This non-regulatory guidance provides States, Local education agency (LEAs), and schools with information about how to implement the graduation rate requirements in the ESEA. Section A of this guidance clarifies the four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate (ACGR) definition and other key terms. Section B discusses requirements for calculating the ACGR. Section C identifies common issues related to implementation and reporting of the ACGR.

The Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) is a system of international assessments that allows countries to compare outcomes of learning as students near the end of compulsory schooling. PISA measures the performance of 15-year-old students in science, reading, and mathematics literacy every 3 years. PISA uses the term "literacy" in each subject area to indicate how well students are able to apply their knowledge and skills to problems in a real-life context.

The Association for Institutional Research (AIR) is engaged in a variety of efforts to document the current state of institutional research. In 2012, the Association initiated a critically important effort to identify the tasks involved in the work of institutional research (IR) across all titles and variations represented in its membership. This work was led by long-term AIR member and Past President Fred Lillibridge, Emeritus Associate Vice President for Accreditation, Compliance, and Planning at Doña Ana Community College. The questions that guided this inquiry included: What skills and abilities do search committees seek when hiring institutional researchers? What tasks are included in AIR members' work? How much is what institutional researchers do worth? The primary goal of this project was to produce an inventory of tasks involved in the work of institutional research (IR) across all titles and variations represented in the AIR membership. The tasks included in this report were submitted by AIR members. The subsequent pages of this report reflect findings about the degree to which senior IR/IE officers perform the tasks examined in this study.

"The ABCs of School Choice" is a comprehensive, data-rich guide to every private school choice program in America. The 2016 edition of "The ABCs of School Choice" is the best yet, not just because of the new look and the fantastic growth in the number of school choice programs, but also because it is now paired with a searchable database on the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice's website at www.edchoice.org/dashboard. The goal is for readers to use the information in "The ABCs of School Choice" and the website to compare and contrast educational choice programs and make informed decisions on how to best empower parents and students. Following a preface by Robert C. Enlow, the President and CEO of the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice, this report provides the following: (1) definitions of the four types of educational choice programs; (2) statistics for every program in the United States; and (3) past data in older editions.

The 2013 edition of the "Digest of Education Statistics" is the 49th in a series of publications initiated in 1962. The Digest has been issued annually except for combined editions for the years 1977-78, 1983-84, and 1985-86. Its primary purpose is to provide a compilation of statistical information covering the broad field of American education from prekindergarten through graduate school. The Digest includes a selection of data from many sources, both government and private, and draws especially on the results of surveys and activities carried out by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). To qualify for inclusion in the Digest, material must be nationwide in scope and of current interest and value. The publication contains information on a variety of subjects in the field of education statistics, including the number of schools and colleges, teachers, enrollments, and graduates, in addition to data on educational attainment, finances, federal funds for education, libraries, and international comparisons. Supplemental information on population trends, attitudes on education, education characteristics of the labor force, government finances, and economic trends provides background for evaluating education data. Although the Digest contains important information on federal education funding, more detailed information on federal activities is available from federal education program offices. The Digest contains seven chapters: All Levels of Education, Elementary and Secondary Education, Postsecondary Education, Federal Funds for Education and Related Activities, Outcomes of Education, International Comparisons of Education, and Libraries and Technology. Each chapter is divided into a number of topical subsections. Preceding the seven chapters is an Introduction that provides a brief overview of current trends in American education, which supplements the tabular materials in chapters 1 through 7. The Digest concludes with three appendices. The first appendix, "Guide to Sources," provides a brief synopsis of the surveys used to generate the Digest tables; the second, "Definitions," is included to help readers understand terms used in the Digest; and the third, "Index of Table Numbers," allows readers to quickly locate tables on specific topics.

Communities across the country are grappling with different approaches to improving their schools. Introducing or expanding charter schools is one of the approaches that states and school districts have considered or implemented. Charter schools serve more than 5 percent of public school students nationwide and make up close to 7 percent of all U.S. public schools. Yet they can be deeply polarizing. This polarization can use up policymakers', educators' and community members' limited time, energy and resources, making it that much more difficult to find practical solutions to improve schools for all children. This guide is designed to counter this controversy by contributing to a more informed, civil dialogue about charter schools. It is the hope that the resources developed for this project enable policymakers, educators and communities to better grapple with decisions about whether and how to introduce or expand charter schools in their states or districts. Grappling with these decisions requires understanding a range of issues that researchers have addressed: What are charter schools' effects on student achievement? Who operates charter schools? How are they financed and governed? How do charter schools affect neighboring traditional public schools? This guide to research is a nonpartisan, nonideological overview of some of the key research on these and other aspects of charter schools. It provides policymakers, journalists and community members with an easily digestible summary of a very wide body of research, including studies that are typically accessible only to academics.

The "Washington English Language Proficiency Assessment" (WELPA) is a No Child Left Behind (NCLB)-compliant instrument that is used in Grades K-12 as a formal and standardized method of measuring language proficiency. The test results provide important information for classifying English Language Learners (ELLs) and subsequently for monitoring their progress in acquiring English. The assessment measures the federally required competencies necessary for successful academic and social language usage in mainstream classrooms: Speaking, Listening, Reading, Writing, Comprehension, and Overall. Additionally, composite scores are provided for Oral and Productive language as well as for Literacy. The WELPA was built from McGraw-Hill Education CTB's LAS Links® English Language Proficiency Assessment and aligned to the Washington State English Language Development (ELD) Standards. The new Proficiency Level Descriptors (PLD) and the new English Language Proficiency (ELP) Standards can be found at http://www.k12.wa.us/MigrantBilingual/ELD.aspx. This Interpretation Guide is designed to: (1) outline the content of the WELPA; (2) provide proficiency level cut points and Performance Level Descriptors; and (2) help interpret test data.

In 2013, the national high school graduation rate hit a record high of 81.4 percent, and for the third year in a row, the nation remained on pace to meet the 90 percent goal by the Class of 2020. This sixth annual update on America's high school dropout challenge shows that these gains have been made possible by raising graduation rates for students who have traditionally struggled to earn a high school diploma, and focuses on the student subgroups and geographic areas that both contribute to this progress and are key to driving toward the 90 percent goal. This report discusses 5 drivers that contribute to the challenge: (1) Low-Income Students; (2) Minority Students; (3) Students with Disabilities; (4) Big Cities/Big Districts; and (5) Big States. This document provides policy recommendations at the end of each section, and includes a compiled list of further federal and state policy recommendations at the end of the report. The following are appended: (1) Number of High Schools by Different Levels of Promoting Power, 2002-2013; (2) Change of High Schools with Promoting Power of 60 Percent or Less by Locale, 2002-2013; (3) High Schools and Student Enrollment by Race/Ethnicity with an Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate (ACGR, 2012) below 67 Percent; (4) Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate (ACGR) Gap Change, by Subgroup and State from 2010-11 to 2012-13; (5) Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate (ACGR) Gaps, by Subgroup and State, 2012-13; (6) Four-Year Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rates (ACGR), by State and Subgroup, 2012-13; (7) Averaged Freshman Graduation Rate (AFGR) and Four-Year Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate (ACGR), by State, 2003-2013; (8) Estimated Additional Graduates Needed by Class of 2020 to Reach 90 Percent, by State and Subgroup; (9) Top-500 Largest School Districts, Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate (ACGR) Change, Total K-12 Enrollment with Enrollment of Students Attending Schools with a City Locale Code, and Percentages of K-12 Race/Ethnicity for Schools within the District with any Locale Code, 2012-13; (10) Four or More Year Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate (ACGR) Public Availability, by State, Classes of 2011-2014; (11) Four-Year Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate (ACGR) Data Links, by State; (12) Frequently Used Terms and Definitions; (13) Graduation Rate FAQ; (14) GradNation Campaign Letter on ESEA Reauthorization; (15) Civic Marshall Plan Principles; and (16) Key Programs of the GradNation Campaign. [Data analysis for this report was performed by Mark Pierson and Vaughan Byrnes. Target was a supporting sponsor of this publication.]

In 2002 the "Council of the Great City Schools" and its members set out to develop performance measures that could be used to improve business operations in urban public school districts. The Council launched the "Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project" to achieve these objectives. The purposes of the project was to: (1) Establish a common set of key performance indicators (KPIs) in a range of school operations, including business services, finances, human resources, and technology; (2) Use these KPIs to benchmark and compare the performance of the nation's largest urban public school systems; and (3) Use the results to improve operational performance in urban public schools. The project's teams have used a sophisticated approach to define, collect and validate school-system data. This process calls for each KPI to have a clearly defined purpose to justify its development, and extensive documentation of the metric definitions ensuring that the expertise of the technical teams is fully captured. From the KPI definitions, the surveys are developed and tested to ensure the comparability, integrity and validity of data across school districts. "Council of the Great City Schools" is pleased to present the 2014 edition of "Managing for Results in America's Great City Schools" and continues to improve the quality of service as it relates to the "Performance Management and Benchmarking Project," which continues to provide a source of national benchmarks, and serves as an important tool for performance management. Highlights from the report include: (1) the turnaround time from initial release of surveys to the release of results has dramatically improved; (2) the launching of a new "results preview" feature that reduces the time for districts to see their own data to only about 24 hours after the data is submitted; (3) establishing a high level of stability and continuity from year to year; and (4) surveys used in the past two cycles were identical, making the data collection process more predictable for districts.

Bullying is one type of violence that threatens a youth's well-being in schools and neighborhoods. The impacts of bullying are felt by individuals, families, schools, and society and may result in youths feeling powerless, intimidated, and humiliated by the aggressive acts of other youth(s). This document is designed as a tool to help organizations, researchers, evaluators, community groups, educators, and public health officials define and gather systematic data on bullying to better inform research and prevention efforts. It is intended to improve the consistency and comparability of data collected on bullying. Current efforts to characterize bullying vary considerably. The lack of a uniform definition hinders the ability to understand the true magnitude, scope, and impact of bullying and track trends over time. Consistent terminology with standardized definitions is necessary to improve public health surveillance of bullying and inform efforts to address bullying. The current definition applies to bullying that occurs between peers and excludes abuse perpetrated by adults against children or youths. It also excludes family violence and violence that occurs within the context of an intimate or dating relationship. These different forms of violence (e.g., child maltreatment, sibling violence, teen dating violence, intimate partner violence, elder maltreatment) can include aggression that is physical, sexual, or psychological (e.g., verbal, belittling, isolating, coercive). However, the context and uniquely dynamic nature of the relationship between the victim and the perpetrator in which these acts occur is different from that of peer violence. This document is divided into four sections, the first of which provides background on the problem, including what is presently known about the public health burden of bullying and the need for a uniform definition of bullying. The uniform definition and description of key terms is presented next followed by considerations to keep in mind when gathering data on bullying. The last section provides a list of recommended data elements designed to assist individuals collecting information on bullying and to serve as a technical reference for the collection of surveillance data. The data elements are grouped into "core" and "expanded" data elements. Core elements are those which are recommended for inclusion in data collection systems in order to track the magnitude, scope, and characteristics of the bullying problem and to identify groups at high risk for being bullied. Expanded data elements are included to support users who may wish to collect other important contextual information about bullying (i.e., witnesses' responses to bullying) depending on community needs, interests, and the feasibility of gathering additional data. A large number of expanded data elements are provided with the expectation that the vast majority of users will only use a subset of them. The appendix contains "Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment PPRA". Additional References are provided with some tables.

The 2012 edition of the "Digest of Education Statistics" is the 48th in a series of publications initiated in 1962. The "Digest" has been issued annually except for combined editions for the years 1977-78, 1983-84, and 1985-86. Its primary purpose is to provide a compilation of statistical information covering the broad field of American education from prekindergarten through graduate school. The "Digest" includes a selection of data from many sources, both government and private, and draws especially on the results of surveys and activities carried out by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). To qualify for inclusion in the "Digest," material must be nationwide in scope and of current interest and value. The publication contains information on a variety of subjects in the field of education statistics, including the number of schools and colleges, teachers, enrollments, and graduates, in addition to data on educational attainment, finances, federal funds for education, libraries, and international comparisons. Supplemental information on population trends, attitudes on education, education characteristics of the labor force, government finances, and economic trends provides background for evaluating education data. Although the "Digest" contains important information on federal education funding, more detailed information on federal activities is available from federal education program offices. The "Digest" contains seven chapters: (1) All Levels of Education; (2) Elementary and Secondary Education; (3) Postsecondary Education; (4) Federal Programs for Education and Related Activities: (5) Outcomes of Education; (6) International Comparisons of Education; and (7) Libraries and Adult Education. Preceding these chapters is an Introduction that provides a brief overview of current trends in American education, which supplements the tabular materials in chapters 1 through 7. The "Digest" concludes with three appendices. The first appendix, Guide to Sources, provides a brief synopsis of the surveys used to generate the "Digest" tables; the second, Definitions, is included to help readers understand terms used in the "Digest"; and the third, Index of Table Numbers, allows readers to quickly locate tables on specific topics. (Contains 493 tables and 29 figures. Individual chapters contain footnotes) [For Appendices, see ED544579. For "Digest of Education Statistics, 2011. NCES 2012-001," see ED544580.]

Annual "Profiles" reports are comprehensive digests of data on education management organizations. Analysis and interpretation of the data in this report are, for the most part, limited to describing general trends over time. The report is intended for a broad audience. Policymakers, educators, school district officials, and school board members may use this information to learn more about current or potential contractors. Investors, persons involved in the education industry, and employees of EMOs may find it useful in tracking changes, strategizing for growth, and planning investments. Journalists and researchers who study and seek to learn more about education management organizations may also find much here to interest them. Changes in the 14th Edition of the EMO Profiles include a closer integration of two separate data sets that track the nonprofit and for-profit EMOs, along with increased reliance on key informants and media sources to identify new EMOs and changes in schools operated by EMOs. The 2011-2012 school year marked another year of growth in both the for-profit and nonprofit education management sectors. In the previous three years we saw some signs of slowing growth in the for-profit sector, but the changes between 2010-2011 and 2011-12, demonstrate that there is still room for growth. The nonprofit management sector's growth has been steadily growing faster than their for-profit counterparts, both in terms of new nonprofit EMOs and new managed schools. Student enrollments in all managed schools continue to grow at a rapid pace. Appended are: (1) Reader's Guide; (2) For-Profit EMO Response Table; (3) Nonprofit EMO Response Table; (4) No Longer Profiled Companies; and (5) Methods for Compiling School Profiles. [To access "Profiles of For-Profit and Nonprofit Education Management Organizations: Thirteenth Annual Report, 2010-2011" see ED528373.

Level descriptors are essential elements of national qualifications frameworks being established across Europe. They define what is meant by learning outcomes, describing what an individual is expected to know, be able to do and understand, having acquired a qualification at a particular level. This Cedefop working paper shows that most of the 36 countries taking part in the implementation of the European qualifications framework (EQF) have now (spring 2013) defined--and for a large part adopted--their levels of learning outcomes. The analysis illustrates the influence of the EQF on national level descriptors, but it also demonstrates how countries have adjusted and further developed the learning outcomes approach according to national needs and priorities. National level descriptors have mostly been developed through extensive dialogue between different stakeholders. This report supports EQF implementation and feeds directly into the referencing process, in which countries relate their national qualifications levels to the EQF. It also provides input into continuing evaluation of the EQF, to be concluded by a report of the European Commission to the European Parliament and Council later in 2013. The following are appended: (1) Level Descriptors at European Level; and (2) Level Descriptors in National Qualifications Frameworks. A bibliography is also included.

As a nation, society benefits from an educated populace. At a time when economic, environmental, social, and security issues are the focus of many conversations in businesses, industries, government offices, schools, and homes, policymakers turn their attention to the further development of human capital. Educators acknowledge that they have key responsibilities to develop the talents and abilities of all students to live in a global community that is increasingly accessible through technological advances. They also want students to become life-long learners who know how to learn and who are motivated to continue learning. How do we, as educators, create dynamic learning opportunities for high school students? How do we address issues related to high school students' perceptions of learning environments? Student voices may be sources of guidance and reflection as we consider the reported lack of academic challenge in contrast to rhetoric about the importance of offering rigorous curricula. One way to approach involvement with rigorous and engaging curricula is to capitalize on domains of interest. There has been considerable emphasis on developing science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) focused schools at all grade levels. The number of STEM high schools alone has tripled in the last decade (2000-2009). To learn more about current STEM high schools across the country, the United States Department of Education commissioned The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented (NRC/GT) to design and implement a study of STEM high schools. The University of Connecticut and the University of Virginia collaborated to address the following project objectives: to create a searchable matrix of STEM high schools, to document the common and unique curricular and instructional strategies used in STEM high schools, and to create and disseminate surveys for high school administrators and teachers documenting the curricular and instructional strategies used in high schools.

This publication presents estimates of apprentice and trainee activity in Australia for the September quarter 2012. The figures in this publication are derived from the National Apprentice and Trainee Collection no.74 (December 2012 estimates). The most recent figures in this publication are estimated (those for training activity from the March quarter 2011 to the September quarter 2012). Estimates take into account reporting lags that occur at the time of data collection. Consequently, the figures in this publication may differ from those published in earlier or later reports. Estimated data are presented in this publication on a seasonally adjusted, quarterly and 12-month ending series basis. The 12-month ending series is particularly useful in showing longer-term data trends, but is less useful in identifying turning points. The seasonally adjusted data involve the use of a mathematical model to smooth out fluctuations due to seasonal influences. Seasonally adjusted data are useful to illustrate trends from one quarter to the next, but cannot be further disaggregated. (Contains 19 tables, 3 figures and 7 notes.)

Subbaccalaureate certificates, postsecondary awards conferred as the result of successful completion of a formal program of study below the baccalaureate level, have become more prominent in higher education over the last decade. Institutions of all sectors offer subbaccalaureate certificates, which can range in length from a few months to more than 2 years. Subbaccalaureate certificates provide individuals with a means for gaining specific skills and knowledge that can be readily transferred to the workforce. Each year institutions report the number of awards conferred in the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) Completions component. The current IPEDS instructions state that institutions should report: "Formal awards conferred by the institution as the result of completion of an academic or occupational program of study. The instructional activity completed as part of the program of study must be credit-bearing, but can be measured in credit hours, contact hours, or some other unit of measurement." Subbaccalaureate certificates are reported in three categories based on the program length, and measured in terms of an academic year, with a clock and credit hour equivalency. The three categories are defined as programs that are: (1) Less than 1 academic year (referred to in this report as short-term); (2) At least 1 but less than 2 academic years (referred to in this report as moderate-term); and (3) At least 2 but less than 4 academic years (referred to in this report as long-term). Given the sharp increase in subbaccalaureate certificates, there is a need to better understand the wide variety of subbaccalaureate certificates reported to IPEDS. As part of its mission to promote the quality, comparability, and utility of postsecondary data, the National Postsecondary Education Cooperative (NPEC) convened a working group to examine subbaccalaureate certificates, which focused on the following questions: (1) How has subbaccalaureate certificate award reporting in IPEDS changed over the last few years? (2) How comparable are the certificate awards reported in IPEDS? (3) What types of subbaccalaureate certificates are not reported to IPEDS? (4) Are there ways that IPEDS could be modified to improve the quality of data reported on subbaccalaureate certificates? To address these questions, the Working Group analyzed IPEDS subbaccalaureate certificate data and identified nine institutions for a more in-depth review of institutional practices for subbaccalaureate certificate reporting. The selected institutions represented different institutional sectors, varying student population sizes, and number of certificates awarded in a year. Some of the institutions reported their own IPEDS data, while other institutions' IPEDS data were reported by system offices on the institutions' behalf. Representatives from the institutions, and where appropriate system offices, were interviewed to gather detailed information on the types of certificates reported to IPEDS and institutional processes for reporting data. This report summarizes the findings related to the questions posed by the Working Group, and offers some recommendations for defining and reporting certificates in IPEDS in the future. Note that the Working Group's discussions focused specifically on subbaccalaureate certificates and references to certificates within this report are to certificates at that level. However, some of the recommendations outlined could have implications for the reporting of post-baccalaureate and postmaster's certificates as well. The report also includes appendices.

The Comprehensive Education Data and Research System (CEDARS) is a longitudinal data system that will allow Washington's Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) to collect, store and report data related to students, courses, and teachers in order to meet state and federal reporting requirements and to help educators and policy makers to make data driven decisions. CEDARS replaced the former data collection tool used by OSPI, the Core Student Record System (CSRS), in September 2009. This manual provides a diagram of how data flows from a district Student Information System (SIS) to OSPI via the CEDARS data collection process. Once the data reaches OSPI, the data is validated and moved to the CEDARS database. Red text in the manual indicates a change since the last version. Additional resources are provided. [To review "Comprehensive Education Data and Research System (CEDARS) Data Manual Appendices: For the 2012-2013 School Year. Version 5.1," in ERIC see ED565688.]

The Comprehensive Education Data and Research System (CEDARS) is a longitudinal data system managed by the Washington State Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) to collect, store and report data related to students, courses, and teachers in order to meet state and federal reporting requirements, and to help educators and policy makers to make data driven decisions. This report contains the appendices for Comprehensive Education Data and Research System (CEDARS) Data Manual For the 2012-2013 School Year. Red text in the manual indicates a change since the last version. The following tables are appended: (1) Appendix A--County-District Codes; (2) Appendix B--Behavior; (3) Appendix C--National Origin Country Codes; (4) Appendix D--Weapons; (5) Appendix E--Grade Level Codes; (6) Appendix G--Grade Level Assignment by Age; (7) Appendix I--Disability Codes; (8) Appendix K--Language Codes; (9) Appendix M--School Withdrawal Codes; (10) Appendix O--Content Area Codes; (11) Appendix P--Term; (12) Appendix Q--Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate Course Codes; (13) Appendix S--CIP Code Numbers and Course Titles for Approved CTE Courses; (14) Appendix U--Staff Type Codes; (15) Appendix V--State Course Codes; (16) Appendix W--Special Education LRE Codes (17) Appendix X--Free/Reduced-Price Meal Eligibility Status; (18) Appendix Y--Ethnicity Codes; and (19) Appendix Z--Race Codes. Additional resources are provided. [For "Comprehensive Education Data and Research System (CEDARS) Data Manual: 2012-2013 School Year. Version 5.2," see ED565707.]

The 2011 edition of the "Digest of Education Statistics" is the 47th in a series of publications initiated in 1962. The "Digest" has been issued annually except for combined editions for the years 1977-78, 1983-84, and 1985-86. Its primary purpose is to provide a compilation of statistical information covering the broad field of American education from prekindergarten through graduate school. The "Digest" includes a selection of data from many sources, both government and private, and draws especially on the results of surveys and activities carried out by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). To qualify for inclusion in the "Digest," material must be nationwide in scope and of current interest and value. The publication contains information on a variety of subjects in the field of education statistics, including the number of schools and colleges, teachers, enrollments, and graduates, in addition to data on educational attainment, finances, federal funds for education, libraries, and international comparisons. Supplemental information on population trends, attitudes on education, education characteristics of the labor force, government finances, and economic trends provides background for evaluating education data. Although the "Digest" contains important information on federal education funding, more detailed information on federal activities is available from federal education program offices. The "Digest" contains seven chapters: All Levels of Education, Elementary and Secondary Education, Postsecondary Education, Federal Programs for Education and Related Activities, Outcomes of Education, International Comparisons of Education, and Libraries and Adult Education. Preceding these chapters is an Introduction that provides a brief overview of current trends in American education, which supplements the tabular materials in chapters 1 through 7. The "Digest" concludes with three appendices. The first appendix, Guide to Sources, provides a brief synopsis of the surveys used to generate the "Digest" tables; the second, Definitions, is included to help readers understand terms used in the "Digest"; and the third, Index of Table Numbers, allows readers to quickly locate tables on specific topics. (Contains 29 figures and 450 tables.) [For Appendices, see ED544581. For "Digest of Education Statistics, 2010. NCES 2011-015," see ED518987.]

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) reauthorization requires State Education Agencies to establish a school choice policy for students attending a persistently dangerous school as defined by the state. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) stipulates that a school can be deemed unsafe as a whole entity or for an individual student who is the victim of a violent criminal offense. In meeting this federal requirement, the Oregon Department of Education seeks to establish and implement a policy that is preventative as well as responsive to parents' immediate concerns. Thus, corrective action is part of the process of designating a school or schools as unsafe or persistently dangerous. This document explains the conditions that need to exist for a public elementary or secondary school to be considered "persistently dangerous" in Oregon. This document is a compilation of the following items: (1) definitions related to discipline incidents; (2) information regarding expulsions, removals, suspensions, and truancy; (3) a line-by-line account of Discipline Incident Rows 56-70; (4) instructions for completing the Discipline Incidents 11-12 Verification Report; (5) information regarding the Report Validation Window (Safe/Unsafe Status); information and frequently asked questions; (6) questions and answers from the field; (7) the file layout; and (8) Discipline Incidents Collection Lookup Tables.

The Australian vocational education and training (VET) system provides training across a wide range of subject areas and is delivered through a variety of training institutions and enterprises (including to apprentices and trainees). The system provides training for students of all ages and backgrounds. Students may study individual subjects or full courses that lead to formal qualifications. This publication estimates the qualification completion rates of publicly funded VET qualifications in Australia, in order to fill a gap in performance measures for the VET sector. For qualifications commencing in 2009: (1) The national estimated completion rate for VET qualifications at certificate I and above was 31.7%, up from 28.8% for qualifications commenced in 2008; (2) For students in full-time study aged 25 years and under with no prior post-school qualification, the national estimated completion rate for VET qualifications was 42.9%, up from 37.9% for qualifications commenced in 2008; (3) VET qualifications at certificate IV (38.5%), diploma and above (37.4%) and certificate III (37.3%) had the highest national estimated completion rates; (4) For students in full-time study aged 25 years and under with no prior post-school qualification, the national estimated completion rate for VET qualifications at certificate III was 50.1%; and (5) VET qualifications in education (51.5%), society and culture (44.3%), and natural and physical sciences (43.3%) had the highest national estimated completion rates. (Contains 6 tables and 3 notes.) [Funding for this paper was provided through the Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education.]

This Quick Reference Document has been prepared by the Regional Resource Center Program ARRA/Fiscal Priority Team to aid RRCP State Liaisons and other (Technical Assistance) TA providers in understanding the general context of state questions surrounding excess cost. As a "first-stop" for TA providers in investigating excess cost questions on behalf of their states, this document is intentionally brief. For additional clarification or detail on a specific excess cost issue, TA providers are encouraged to contact the member of the ARRA/Fiscal Priority Team in their respective RRCP region or the ARRA/Fiscal Convener for additional information and resources.

The authors of this report analyzed the most recent data to illustrate the impact of literacy skills on both the micro- and macro-economic levels. The report explores whether there is a case to be made for direct links between literacy skill and income level. Data relating to the ability to get a job, job retention and promotion, risk of job loss, length of time unemployed and rates of pay were examined. The report provides a summary of how literacy skill and low income are related, and what these relationships imply for public policy. The following are appended: (1) References; and (2) Statistical Tables. [For "Summary: From Poverty to Prosperity Literacy's Impact on Canada's Economic Success," see ED565184.]

This report details Title III accountability policies and outcomes for K-12 English language learner (ELL) students for school year 2007/08 in the six Southeast Region states (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, and South Carolina) under the Title III annual measurable achievement objectives (AMAO) provision of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001. The AMAO provision of Title III is an accountability mechanism designed specifically for ELL students. It applies to states and their subgrantees (educational entities, usually districts that serve ELL students) that receive federal Title III funds to improve programs and education outcomes for ELL students. Title III formula grants are disbursed to all U.S. states and territories. Key findings include: (1) All six states had district subgrantees; (2) The six states used five different English language proficiency assessments; (3) All six states' AMAO 1 definitions entailed measuring the annual change in English language proficiency assessment scores (comparing 2007/08 with 2006/07); (4) All six states' AMAO 2 definitions involved comparing 2007/08 assessment scores with those required to meet the state's definition of proficiency; and (5) All six states' AMAO 3 definitions were based on the state's definition of adequate yearly progress as established for Title I. Given these variations in the numbers and types of subgrantees across states, the English language proficiency assessments they used, how AMAOs were defined, and the targets they set, the 2007/08 AMAO 1, 2, and 3 determinations reported different indicators across states. Common interpretations of the results, and thus comparisons among states, are not possible. Appendices include: (1) Data sources and methodology; (2) Data organization protocol; (3) U.S. Department of Education 2008 revised interpretations of Title III of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001; (4) Enrollment of English language learner students and first language; (5) State profiles; and (6) Features of instruction models, 2007/08. (Contains 83 tables, 4 boxes and 12 notes.) [For the summary report, see ED518023.]

Board policy provides that in the fall of every even-numbered year, the Chancellor's Office shall compile a System report on faculty workloads at the Nevada System of Higher Education (NSHE) institutions. Faculty workload is collected from the campuses in two parts: (1) in-class instructional data originating from workload databases and validated by department heads; and (2) out-of-classroom data collected at the individual faculty or department level and validated by department heads. This paper reports the faculty workloads at NSHE institutions 2010. Faculty Workload Guidelines ("Title 4, Chapter 3, Section 3") is appended.

The Australian vocational education and training (VET) system provides training across a wide range of subject areas and is delivered through a variety of training institutions and enterprises (including to apprentices and trainees). The system provides training for students of all ages and backgrounds. Students may study individual subjects or full courses that lead to formal qualifications. This publication estimates the qualification completion rates of publicly funded VET qualifications in Australia, in order to fill a gap in performance measures for the VET sector. For qualifications commencing in 2008: (1) The national estimated completion rate for VET enrolments at certificate I and above is 28.4%, and the subject load pass rate is 80.4%; (2) For students in full-time study aged 25 years and under with no previous post-school qualification, the national estimated qualification completion rate is 37.3% and the corresponding subject load pass rate is 77.5%; (3) Students enrolled in qualifications at certificate IV level (34.6%), certificate III level (33.5%) and diploma level and above (32.9%) have the highest estimated completion rates; (4) Full-time students aged 25 years and under with no previous post-school qualification enrolled in a certificate III have estimated completion rates of 45.9%; and (5) Enrolments in education (52.0%), society and culture (37.3%) and health (37.2%) have the highest estimated qualification completion rates. (Contains 6 tables and 4 notes.) [For related report, "The Likelihood of Completing a VET Qualification: A Model-Based Approach. Technical Paper," see ED511677.]

Since President Obama took office, he has repeatedly called for the United States to significantly improve its postsecondary education performance. One goal in particular has gained wide attention: the President's declaration that in an ever more competitive global marketplace, the United States must once again lead the world in college attainment, challenging Americans to complete at least one year of education past high school. Completion is the key when it comes to advanced education. To fully enjoy the benefits of higher knowledge and skills, one must graduate. A too often underutilized strategy--but one that can deliver greater income returns than associate and even some bachelor's degrees--is certificates. And for students balancing the jobs they must have with the advanced education they desire--a situation faced by most American college students today--completing a certificate can be the most direct path to college completion and career success. Against this backdrop, "Certificates Count: An Analysis of Sub-Baccalaureate Certificates" calls attention to the significant value of certificate programs--practical and often underutilized credentials that can provide graduates with an appealing combination of rapid postsecondary achievement and portable skills and knowledge. Certificates can position graduates for immediate workforce success, while establishing solid foundations for future academic achievement. This study draws attention to important distinctions between certificate programs: length of program, subjects studied, program quality, and availability by geographical region. Appended are: (1) Summary of Sub-Baccalaureate Certificates Awarded All Title IV Institutions, By Length, By Sector 2007-08; (2) Summary of Sub-Baccalaureate Certificates Awarded All Title IV Institutions, By Length, By Program Category 2007-08; (3) All Certificate Awards by State By Sector and Public as a Percentage of the Total 2007-08; (4) All Certificates and Public Sector Certificates By State per 10,000 Population, Ranked, 2007-08; (5) Certificate Awards by State as a Percentage of All Sub-Baccalaureate Completions, 2007-08; (6) Certificate Awards by State Per 10,000 Population, 2007-08; (7) All Sub-Baccalaureate Awards by State, Per 10,000 Population, 2007-08; (8) Associate's Degrees and Certificates Awarded by Public Two-Year Institutions, 2007-08; (9) Public Two-Year Degree-Granting Institutions Certificates as a Percentage of all Sub-Baccalaureate Completions, 2007-08; and (10) Associate Degrees and Long Term Certificates Per Population, Ranked by State, Community Colleges Only, 2007-08. (Contains 5 tables, 6 charts, and 13 footnotes.) [For "Certificates Count: An Analysis of Sub-Baccalaureate Certificates. Executive Summary and Data Appendices," see ED536835.]

This project assesses the feasibility of creating a voluntary, nationwide data dictionary that can be used to standardize the reporting of postsecondary accountability reporting requirements for the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006 (otherwise known as Perkins IV). Variables, field codes, and programming instructions, defined in collaboration with state postsecondary data analysts, offer a framework that states can use to crosswalk data from their existing information systems into a common database format. In this project, researchers from the National Research Center for Career and Technical Education and MPR Associates, Inc., worked together to meet two objectives: develop a common data dictionary, and perform a quality check on the data dictionary by asking states to populate it with actual data. A critical finding of the project is that participating states were able to uniformly define many data elements that can be used to construct and report on postsecondary accountability measures required by the Perkins Act. States and the project team selected data elements with a view toward what information might be needed if and when the Perkins Act is reauthorized. The study acknowledges that there may be differences in how states collect data; however, a common data dictionary provides a standard goal to which all states can crosswalk their own data. Using a common data dictionary, and with sufficient support, many states should be able to generate relatively similar information for Perkins accountability purposes. Appended are: (1) State Profiles of Perkins Postsecondary Data Systems; (2) Recommended Postsecondary Common Data Dictionary Template; and (3) Preliminary Quality Check of the Postsecondary Common Data Dictionary. (Contains 9 tables and 7 footnotes.)

As part of compliance with with the federal No Child Left Behind Act, this document presents the State Report Card of Arizona for 2009-2010. The report card provides tables relating to percentage of students who passed AIMS in Arizona by subject and grade. The tables shown in this document include: (1) Mathematics Grade 3; (2) Reading Grade 3; (3) Writing Grade 3; (4) Mathematics Grade 4; (5) Reading Grade 4; (6) Writing Grade 4; (7) Science Grade 4; (8) Mathematics Grade 5; (9) Reading Grade 5; (10) Writing Grade 5; (11) Mathematics Grade 6; (12) Reading Grade 6; (13) Writing Grade 6; (14) Mathematics Grade 7; (15) Reading Grade 7; (16) Writing Grade 7; (17) Mathematics Grade 8; (18) Reading Grade 8; (19) Writing Grade 8; (20) Science Grade 8; (21) Mathematics High School; (22) Reading High School; (23) Writing High School; and (24) Science High School. The remainder of the tables focus on: NCLB Federal Accountability School Improvement Status; School and District Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP); Statewide Four-Year Graduation Rates; Average Daily Attendance Rates; AZ LEARNS--State Accountability; and Highly Qualified Teachers 2009-2010. Status definitions for Title I schools identified for improvement and profile definitions for AZ LEARNS--State Accountability are provided.

The Doorways training program was designed by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)-funded Safe Schools Program (Safe Schools) to enable teachers, community members and students to prevent and respond to school-related gender-based violence (SRGBV). This booklet, "Doorways III: Teacher Reference Materials on School-Related Gender-Based Violence Prevention and Response," was designed for participants attending the Doorways III training program. It is to be used during the training for session activities. The booklet is also a resource teachers can refer to once they have returned to their classrooms to help them put into practice the new information and skills gained from the Doorways training program. A section titled School-Related Gender-Based Violence: Definition and Types is appended. A glossary and bibliography are included. (Contains 13 footnotes.) [This manual is part of the Doorways program that comprises: "Doorways I: Student Training Manual on School-Related Gender-Based Violence Prevention and Response" (ED507886); "Doorways II: Community Counselor Reference Materials. On School-Related Gender-Based Violence Prevention and Response" (ED507889); and "Doorways II: Community Counselor Training Manual on School-Related Gender-Based Violence Prevention and Response" (ED507887). For "Doorways III: Teacher Training Manual," see ED507888.]

The Doorways training program was designed by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)-funded Safe Schools Program (Safe Schools) to enable teachers, community members and students to prevent and respond to school-related gender-based violence (SRGBV). Doorways II was designed for community counselors to prevent and respond to violence in schools. It includes this training manual and "Doorways II: Community Counselor Reference Materials on School-Related Gender-Based Violence Prevention and Response," which contains content information and materials for participants to use throughout the program. A glossary and a bibliography are included. Two appendices are included: (1) School-Related Gender-Based Violence: Definition and Types; and (2) Doorways Training Program Evaluation. (Contains 19 footnotes.) [This manual is part of the Doorways program that comprises: "Doorways I: Student Training Manual on School-Related Gender-Based Violence Prevention and Response" (ED507886); "Doorways II: Community Counselor Reference Materials on School-Related Gender-Based Violence Prevention and Response" (ED507889); Doorways III: Teacher Reference Materials on School-Related Gender-Based Violence Prevention and Response (ED507890); and Doorways III: Teacher Training Manual on School-Related Gender-Based Violence Prevention and Response (ED507888).]

The Doorways training program was designed by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)-funded Safe Schools Program (Safe Schools) to enable teachers, community members and students to prevent and respond to school-related gender-based violence (SRGBV). "Doorways I: Student Training Manual on School-Related Gender-Based Violence Prevention and Response" was designed for students to improve their resiliency and self-efficacy and to help them prevent and respond to SRGBV. A glossary is included. Two appendices are included: (1) School-Related Gender-Based Violence: Definition and Types; and (2) Sample Letter to Parents. (Contains 34 footnotes.) [This manual is part of the Doorways program that comprises: "Doorways II: Community Counselor Reference Materials on School-Related Gender-Based Violence Prevention and Response" (ED507889); "Doorways II: Community Counselor Training Manual on School-Related Gender-Based Violence Prevention and Response" (ED507887); "Doorways III: Teacher Reference Materials on School-Related Gender-Based Violence Prevention and Response" (ED507890); and "Doorways III: Teacher Training Manual on School-Related Gender-Based Violence Prevention and Response" (ED507888).]

This resource has been written specifically for higher education practitioners who are interested in improving students' learning experiences through the process of researching their own practice. We use the term 'higher education practitioners' to describe all who work in universities and who have a stake in students' learning experiences. Although not exhaustive, this would include all lecturers and university teachers (including associate, part-time and hourly paid); professionals such as librarians and information technology experts; and support specialists such as counsellors, disability advisors, and those working in careers and employability. For all these professionals, action research would be equally useful whether early, mid, or late career. The guide provides useful insights into what is involved through exploring the definitions that surround action research. The authors see action research is a type of inquiry that is: (1) "practical" as it involves making change to practice; (2) "theoretical" as it is informed by theory and can generate new insights; (3) "collaborative" as it encourages engagement with others in the process; (4) "reflexive" as it requires practitioner researchers to keep their own knowledge, values, and professional activities under review; and (5) "contextual" as it acknowledges institutional, national, historical and societal influences. The authors also outline what the key characteristics are of action research, and are keen to stress the cyclical nature from planning to reflection. Arnold and Norton (2018) are also keen to show how action research aligns closely to the UKPSF framework and how there is opportunity for colleagues to work with others as part of scholarship and the development of professional standards. The guide stresses the importance of how our professional values can be shaped and developed offering some good examples throughout the guide to help the reader understand how action research can be transformative for everyone involved. The authors explore both what action research means (reflexivity) and what it does not (reliability), offering up some clear guidance so that others can navigate their approach safely. The authors provide a very useful starting point for anyone considering undertaking action research; they should consider four areas of concern: (1) Concern of student needs; (2) Concern of staff development; (3) Concern for institutional priorities; and (4) Pursuit of intellectual interest. Finally the authors helpfully give advice and guidance on presenting action research, reminding readers of the importance of publishing outputs, disseminating the learning and sharing among wider community groups.

Board policy provides that in the fall of every even-numbered year, the Chancellor's Office shall compile a System report on faculty workloads at NSHE (Nevada System of Higher Education) institutions. Faculty workload is collected from the institutions in two parts: (1) in-class instructional data originating from workload databases and validated by department heads; and (2) out-of-classroom data collected at the individual faculty or department level and validated by department heads. This report provides the faculty workload data for 2008. Appendices include: (1) Faculty Workload Guidelines ("Title 4, Chapter 3, Section 3"); (2) Instructional Workload Form, University & State College; (3) Instructional Workload Form, Community College; (4) Out-of-Classroom Activities Form, University and State College; (5) Out-of-Classroom Activities Form, Community Colleges; (6) Out-of-Classroom Definitions, University & State College; and (7) Out-of-Classroom Definitions, Community Colleges. [For "Faculty Workload Report, 2006", see ED513356.]

This report focuses on distance education within the Nevada System of Higher Education (NSHE) for the 2007-08 academic year and provides documentation of the substantial growth of distance education within all colleges and universities. Distance education is a field of continuous improvement and change, and NSHE institutions are constantly working to extend their offerings beyond their physical limits to meet the learning needs of students in Nevada. Without distance education many students, especially those living in Nevada's extensive rural areas and those with heavy work or family commitments, would not be able to pursue their higher education goals. The following are a few of the major highlights in this report: (1) The number of students enrolled in at least one distance education course increased from 5,798 in Fall 2001 to 24,656 in Fall 2007, an increase of 18,858 students or 325 percent; (2) The College of Southern Nevada (CSN) will soon launch the CSN Online Campus. The CSN Online Campus will meet the needs of the 100 percent online learners by providing all of the courses, programs, and services that are commonly provided to students attending traditional on campus courses and programs; (3) In order to provide a more robust support structure, Western Nevada College's (WNC) Library & Media Services reference librarians assumed responsibility as the first contact for students enrolled in online classes. This arrangement worked well over the past several years, with a record number of over 550 calls for assistance handled in student support; (4) Building on the universal deployment of WebCampus, all students admitted to Nevada State College (NSC) are enrolled automatically in an online course called "Student WebCampus Orientation". The course includes all of the WebCampus learning tools with related learning exercises; (5) Truckee Meadows Community College's (TMCC) WebCollege is developing a fast-track online degree program (courses offered in a 5-week online format) which will target nontraditional working adults and will offer an accelerated solution for degree completion. The degree program is slated to be launched in Spring 2010 and will feature credit for lifelong learning experience (where appropriate), a student academic plan, fostering student learning communities, and will focus on degree completion for nontraditional students; (6) The University of Nevada, Reno's (UNR) Teaching, Learning, and Technology staff is very active in training faculty to teach online. More than 1,000 class sections each semester have technology components. Technical support for online students through the Knowledge Center is excellent; (7) Since 2005, the University of Nevada Las Vegas (UNLV) Distance Education Office captions all streaming videos, which are used by distance education courses and sometimes the instructors' face to face campus sections. The captioning of videos ensures Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance. The shared use of distance education created materials utilizes scarce UNLV resources and upgrades educational effectiveness across the campus; and (8) Great Basin College's (GBC) distance education offerings currently account for over 51 percent of GBC's overall enrollment. Great Basin College's WebCampus continues to grow at an exceptional rate. The WebCampus has seen a 142 percent increase in FTE from Fall 2005 to Fall 2007. Students increasingly demand and expect distance education offerings. In order to meet the rising demand, some important elements should be examined in a statewide coordinated effort: infrastructure, faculty development and support, student services, accessibility, and the policies that govern distance education. Board of Regents' "Handbook" Title 4, Chapter 14 Section 11 is appended. (Contains 8 tables and 10 charts.)

Children with disabilities have a right to a free appropriate public education (FAPE). Children differ in mental abilities, sensory development, physical traits, emotional or social behaviors, or communication skills. Some may require modification to their school program or special education and related services in order to benefit from their schooling. Congress recognized that children with disabilities have special needs and passed what is now called the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in 1975. That law provided that children with disabilities must receive a free appropriate public education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment (LRE). The law has since been reauthorized six times and this booklet reflects the latest changes made by Congress in 2004. Missouri House Bill 474 and later legislation make it the law of the state to provide special education services, sufficient to meet the needs of all children with eligible disabilities, from the child's 3rd birthday to age 21, at no cost to the parent. The Missouri State Plan for Special Education contains all regulations that must be followed by all public school districts and other responsible agencies in the provision of special education services. This guide was developed to provide information concerning one's rights and responsibilities as the parent of a child with a disability as defined in the Missouri State Plan for Special Education. Appendices include: (1) Criteria for Determination of Eligibility; (2) Definitions of Disabilities; (3) Special Education Placements; and (4) Resources. (Contains 4 resources.) [This is an update of "A Parent's Guide to Special Education in Missouri," published in July 1983. To access this report, see ED264708.]

This report presents tabulations for the 2006 Academic Libraries Survey (ALS) conducted by the United States Department of Education's National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), within the Institute of Education Sciences. An academic library is defined as an entity in a postsecondary institution that provides all of the following: An organized collection of printed or other materials, or a combination thereof; a staff trained to provide and interpret such materials as required to meet the informational, cultural, recreational, or educational needs of the clientele; an established schedule in which services of the staff are available to the clientele; and the physical facilities necessary to support such a collection, staff, and schedule. This definition includes libraries that are part of learning resource centers. Branch and independent libraries are defined as auxiliary library service outlets with quarters separate from the central library that houses the basic collection. The central library administers the branches. In ALS, libraries on branch campuses that have separate NCES identification numbers are reported as separate libraries. These academic libraries are informational resources within degree-granting postsecondary institutions in the United States, including institutions that are eligible for Title IV aid and branch campuses of Title IV-eligible institutions. When academic libraries are referred to in this report, they will always be entities that are part of the degree-granting postsecondary institutions in the United States, including institutions that are eligible for Title IV aid and branch campuses of Title IV, eligible institutions. Appended are: (1) Technical Notes; and (2) Questionnaire and Instructions. (Contains 16 tables.) [For "Academic Libraries: 2004. First Look. NCES 2007-301," see ED494016.]

Individual teachers have the largest single school effect on student performance. Documented experience also indicates that individual teachers in high-poverty schools can effect rapid, dramatic student learning improvements within their own classrooms. Organization-wide change of a similar magnitude takes a broader effort with daring leadership at the helm and persistent, achievement-oriented collaboration among staff. That is the stuff of which rapid, bad-to-great turnarounds across sectors are made. This guide aims to help schools attempting turnarounds understand the underlying characteristics of teachers likely to succeed in this unique context, based on the best available research to date. Interestingly, the characteristics identified by early research on star "teachers" in high-poverty schools are remarkably similar to the competencies exhibited by turnaround "leaders" across sectors. As more schools attempt turnarounds, increasingly accurate, detailed descriptions of teachers who are successful in this context will be possible. This is a companion to "Leaders for School Turnarounds: Competencies for Success." Both guides seek to clarify the most critical competencies--or patterns of thinking, feeling, speaking and acting--that enable people to be successful in attempts to transform schools from failure to excellence quickly and dramatically. The leader guide provides competency definitions, school examples, and detailed levels of increasingly effective competence. This teacher version provides competency definitions and school examples only. A bibliography is included. (Contains 7 footnotes.) [Contributors include Lucy M. Steiner, Emily Ayscue Hassel, Bryan Hassel and Elizabeth Valsing. For related reports, see "School Turnaround Leaders: Competencies for Success. Part of the School Turnaround Collection from Public Impact" (ED539552); "School Turnaround Leaders: Selection Toolkit. Part of the School Turnaround Collection from Public Impact" (ED539543); and "School Turnaround Teachers: Selection Toolkit. Part of the School Turnaround Collection from Public Impact" (ED539551).]

Skilled teachers who assess students using high quality, relevant and timely assessments can use the results to modify, refine and individualize instruction. Student assessments should be a reflection of what is taught in the classroom. As more accountability provisions have been implemented at the national, state and district levels, the focus on test scores and their implications has dictated what students should learn. Although the federal government requires testing in most grades, these requirements are often supplemented at the state and district levels. This results in increased testing and test preparation without providing additional information to help teachers inform instruction and understand their students' academic standing and needs. The American Federation of Teachers (AFT) believes it is critical to define and describe appropriate testing practices, to advocate on behalf of teachers and their students for sound assessment policies, and to align standards and curricula at each grade level. It is imperative that states, districts and teachers understand the purpose of various types of tests and test results. In some cases, new tests that yield more useful results may need to be developed. To help create a common language and understanding of what is appropriate, this article defines the most commonly used tests and provides recommendations about how these tests should be used. A list of commonly used tests is included in the Appendix.

This "Packet of Information for Professionals" (PIP) was developed for professionals who work with gifted and talented students who have an autism spectrum disorder (ASD). The purpose of PIP is to offer recommendations that will lead to a positive experience for twice-exceptional students who participate in specialized programs for gifted/talented students. This PIP was originally developed in 2007 for the Student Program Faculty and Professional Staff of the Belin-Blank Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development (B-BC). It has been revised and expanded to incorporate multiple forms of special gifted programs including academic year Saturday programs, which can be both enrichment or accelerative; non-residential summer programs; and residential summer programs. Appended are: (1) Definition of Giftedness; (2) Disability Categories of IDEA; (3) Explanation of Federal Protections for Students with Disabilities; (4) Diagnostic Criteria for Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD); (5) The Assessment Process at the Belin-Blank Center's Assessment and Counseling Clinic; (6) Web Sites for People Who Work with Individuals with an Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD); and (7) Annotated Bibliography. [Funding for this paper was provided by Messengers of Healing Winds Foundation.]

This manual is designed to help advocates, including parents, obtain special education for children with disabilities residing in New Jersey. It explains the requirements of the federal statute governing special education--the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)--and the federal regulations implementing IDEA, as well as the state regulations implementing IDEA. A summary of the federal and state laws can be found in the first appendix of this manual. In addition, the manual gives practical information about the special education system, and suggests ways to advocate for an appropriate education for children with disabilities. The intent of this manual is to provide information and guidance to advocates so that all children with disabilities in the state can achieve high standards and receive an education that prepares them for full participation in society. Appended are: (1) Legal Background; (2) State Regulations Defining Disability Categories; (3) State Regulations Defining Eligibility for Speech-Language Services in New Jersey; (4) Sample Parent Letter Requesting an Evaluation; (5) Sample Parent Letter Requesting a Re-Evaluation; (6) Sample Parent Letter Requesting an Independent Evaluation; (7) Sample Parent Letter Requesting IEP Services; (8) Sample Parent Letter Requesting IEP Team Member Presence at IEP Meeting; (9) Criteria for "Alternative Education Programs" and "Home or Out -of-School Instruction"; (10) Definitions for "Dangerous Weapon,""Serious Bodily Injury," "Controlled Substance" and "Illegal Drug"; (11) General Tips for Parents; (12) Advocacy and Information Resources; (13) New Jersey Department of Education County Supervisors of Child Study; (14) Parental Request for Mediation/Due Process Hearing/Expedited Due Process Hearing; (15) Parental Request for Emergent Relief; (16) New Jersey Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs Complaint Form; (17) New Jersey Department of Education Parental Request for Enforcement of a Mediation Agreement; (18) New Jersey Department of Education Parental Request for Enforcement of Decision Issued by the Office of Administrative Law; and (19) Sample Parent Letter Requesting School Records. (Contains 683 endnotes.) [The original version of this manual was written by Ellen Boylan with assistance from Elizabeth Athos, Ruth Lowenkron, and Elisabeth Yap. This Second Edition was edited with assistance from Ruth Lowenkron. It was made possible with funding from the IOLTA Fund of the Bar of New Jersey and the New Jersey State Bar Foundation.]