<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0"><channel><title>NCES Publications</title><link>http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/</link><description>NCES Publications and Products from the last 90 days.</description><language>en-us</language><category>education</category><category>statistics</category><category>data access tools</category><category>libraries</category><category>schools</category><category>colleges</category><item><title>Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System Human Resources Data Quality Study</title><description><![CDATA[The purpose of this study was to assess the reliability and quality of human resources (HR) data collected through the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) from postsecondary institutions in the academic year 2004-2005.  The 2004-05 IPEDS HR data collected in the Salaries (SA) and Employees by Assigned Position (EAP) components were compared to HR data from several external sources.  An assessment of the 2004-05 IPEDS Fall Staff component was also made; however, the assessment involving the Fall Staff component differed from the assessment involving the IPEDS SA and EAP components because the reporting of Fall Staff data was optional in 2004-05 while the reporting of SA and EAP data was required in 2004-05 for Title IV institutions that met the minimum criteria for applicability. 

After taking definitional differences, data elements, and comparable institutions into consideration, HR data from the IPEDS SA component and HR data from the external sources were fairly consistent with one another.  Where data for 9/10- and 11/12-month full-time faculty members could be separated, data for 9/10-month faculty members were more consistent between the data sources while data for 11/12-month faculty were somewhat less consistent.  Detailed data (by gender and academic rank) were less likely to be consistent from one report to another than were overall totals or averages.  The HR data from the IPEDS EAP component that were compared to the HR data from the external sources revealed very small to large differences depending on the data element evaluated.  The analysis of the executive/administrative/managerial staff reported to IPEDS and to external sources revealed large differences, which were most likely related to the lack of common definitions between the sources.  Overall, the 2004-05 optional year Fall Staff component data were at least as accurate as the original 2003-04 required year data submissions for both degree- and non-degree-granting institutions.

]]></description><pubDate>5/5/2008</pubDate><link>http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2008150</link></item><item><title>Teacher Career Choices: Timing of Teacher Careers Among 1992-93 Bachelor's Degree Recipients </title><description><![CDATA[This report uses longitudinal data from the 1992-93 Baccalaureate and Beyond Study (B&amp;B:93/03) to analyze the teaching career choices of 1992-93 bachelor's degree recipients. As of 2003, some 87 percent of graduates reported not teaching in 1994, 1997, and 2003 (nonteachers). Of the 13 percent of graduates who were teaching at one or more of the three follow-up interviews, 31 percent taught consistently, 41 percent were late starters, 16 percent were leavers, and 12 percent were other teachers.  The report also provides an in-depth look at the teacher career choices of those graduates with various demographic characteristics, academic backgrounds, teaching assignments, and salaries.  Among those who taught, graduates with dependents in each year (1993, 1997, and 2003) taught consistently at higher rates than graduates without dependents.  Most graduates who taught consistently had majored in education for their bachelor's degree (77 percent). On the other hand, 40 percent of education majors were not teaching at the elementary/secondary level in 1994, 1997, or 2003. Many of the 1992-93 graduates who became teachers had earned a master's degree or higher by 2003 and had done so at higher rates than graduates who did not teach: 39 percent of graduates who taught had attained a master's degree or higher by 2003, compared with about one-quarter of those who did not teach. The results in this report may inform research on teacher supply and demand, teacher attrition, and teacher retention. ]]></description><pubDate>4/29/2008</pubDate><link>http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2008153</link></item><item><title>An Exploratory Analysis of the Content and Availability of State Administrative Data on Teacher Compensation</title><description><![CDATA[This report identifies state education agencies (SEAs) that maintain records on pay for public school teachers, the comparability of these records, and whether the data might be available to the research community.  The report finds that many states maintain teacher-level records with earnings and other teacher characteristics, and are willing to share these data with researchers.  It is feasible to use teacher employment and compensation data collected by SEAs to conduct large multistate comparative studies of teacher pay. These studies would not only permit overall comparisons of pay, but also comparisons of teacher pay at various points along typical career trajectories, with breakdowns by teacher demographics and state or district characteristics.

]]></description><pubDate>4/29/2008</pubDate><link>http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2008601</link></item><item><title>Parent Expectations and Planning for College: Statistical Analysis Report</title><description><![CDATA[This report uses data from the 2003 National Household Education Surveys Program (NHES) Parent and Family Involvement Survey (PFI) to examine the characteristics associated with the educational expectations parents had for their children and the postsecondary education planning practices families and schools engaged in. The results presented in this report are based on a sample of students in grades 6 through 12 who represented the 28,182,000 students in grades 6 through 12 in the United States in early 2003. The data revealed that roughly nine out of every 10 students (91 percent) in grades 6 through 12 had parents who expected them to continue their education beyond high school, with about two-thirds (65 percent) having had parents who expected them to finish college. Other findings presented in this report show that about one-third (32 percent) of students had parents who perceived that their child&#8217;s school did very well at providing information to help their child plan for postsecondary education. Finally, among students whose parents expected them to continue their education after high school, 82 percent had parents who reported that the family was planning on helping to pay for their child&#8217;s postsecondary education costs, and among those whose parents reported that the family was planning on helping to pay the costs, 66 percent had parents who reported that they had enough information about postsecondary education costs to begin planning.  ]]></description><pubDate>4/22/2008 9:59:00 AM</pubDate><link>http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2008079</link></item><item><title>Revenues and Expenditures for Public Elementary and Secondary Education: School Year 2005-06 (Fiscal Year 2006)</title><description><![CDATA[This brief publication contains basic revenue and expenditure data, by state, for public elementary and secondary education for school year 2005-06.  It contains state-level data on revenues by source and expenditures by function, including expenditures per pupil.]]></description><pubDate>4/15/2008</pubDate><link>http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2008328</link></item><item><title>Findings from the Pilot Teacher Compensation Survey: School Year 2005-06</title><description><![CDATA[This brief publication contains summary data from the research and development effort to collect individual salary and demographic data on public school teachers. Seven states participated in this effort: Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Missouri, and Oklahoma. Data from full-time public school teachers who teach at only one school were included in the analysis. Median salaries and counts for different groupings by experience, age, race, and gender are presented.]]></description><pubDate>4/10/2008</pubDate><link>http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2008440</link></item><item><title>The Nation&amp;#8217;s Report Card: Writing 2007</title><description><![CDATA[This report presents the results of the 2007 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) writing assessment. It was administered to a nationally representative sample of more than 165,000 eighth- and twelfth-graders from public and private schools. In addition to national results, the report includes state and urban district results for grade 8 public school students. Forty-five states, the Department of Defense schools, and 10 urban districts voluntarily participated. To measure their writing skills, the assessment engaged students in narrative, informative, and persuasive writing tasks. NAEP presents the writing results as scale scores and achievement-level percentages. Results are also reported for student performance by various demographic characteristics such as race/ethnicity, gender, and eligibility for the National School Lunch Program. The 2007 national results are compared with results from the 2002 and 1998 assessments. At grades 8 and 12, average writing scores and the percentages of students performing at or above Basic were higher than in both previous assessments. The White -- Black score gap narrowed at grade 8 compared to 1998 and 2002 but showed no significant change at grade 12. The gender score gap showed no significant change at grade 8 compared with previous assessments but narrowed at grade 12 since 2002. Eighth-graders eligible for free or reduced-price school lunch scored lower on average than students who were not eligible. Compared with 2002, average writing scores for eighth-graders increased in 19 states and the Department of Defense schools, and scores decreased in one state. Compared with 1998, scores increased in 28 states and the Department of Defense Schools, and no states showed a decrease. Scores for most urban districts at grade 8 were comparable to or higher than scores for large central cities but were below the national average. Trend results are available for 4 of the 10 urban districts.  ]]></description><pubDate>4/3/2008</pubDate><link>http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2008468</link></item><item><title>NAEP Writing 2007 State Snapshot Reports </title><description><![CDATA[Each state and jurisdiction that participated in the NAEP 2007 writing assessment receives a one-page snapshot report that presents key findings and trends in a condensed format. The reports in this series present bulleted text describing overall student results, bar charts showing NAEP achievement levels for each year in which the state participated, and tables displaying results by gender, race/ethnicity, and eligibility for free/reduced-price lunch. In addition, bulleted text describes the trends in average scale score gaps for gender, race/ethnicity, eligibility for free/reduced-price lunch, and the 25th compared to the 75th percentile score. Trends in scale scores at selected percentiles are also displayed. ]]></description><pubDate>4/3/2008</pubDate><link>http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2008470</link></item><item><title>NAEP Writing 2007 District Snapshot Reports </title><description><![CDATA[Each district that participated in the NAEP 2007 Trial Urban District Assessment in writing receives a one-page snapshot report that presents key findings and trends in a condensed format. The reports in this series present bulleted text describing overall student results, bar charts showing NAEP achievement levels for each year in which the district participated, and tables displaying results by gender, race/ethnicity, and eligibility for free/reduced-price lunch. In addition, bulleted text describes the trends in average scale score gaps for gender, race/ethnicity, eligibility for free/reduced-price lunch, and the 25th compared to the 75th percentile score. Trends in scale scores at selected percentiles are also displayed. ]]></description><pubDate>4/3/2008</pubDate><link>http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2008471</link></item><item><title>Comparison Between NAEP and State Reading Assessment Results: 2003</title><description><![CDATA[In late January through early March of 2003, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) grade 4 and 8 reading and mathematics
assessments were administered to representative samples of students in approximately 100 public schools in each state. The results of these assessments were announced in November 2003. Each state also carried out its own reading and
mathematics assessments in the 2002-2003 school year, most including grades 4 and 8. This report addresses the question of whether the results published by NAEP are comparable to the results published by individual state testing programs.  OBJECTIVES: Comparisons to address the following four questions are based purely on results of
testing and do not compare the content of NAEP and state assessments.  How do states&#8217; achievement standards compare with each other and with NAEP?  Are NAEP and state assessment results correlated across schools?  Do NAEP and state assessments agree on achievement trends over time?  Do NAEP and state assessments agree on achievement gaps between subgroups?  
How do states&#8217; achievement standards compare with each other and with NAEP? Both NAEP and State Education Agencies have set achievement, or performance, standards for reading and have identified test score criteria for determining the percentages of students who meet the standards. Most states have multiple performance standards, and these can be categorized into a primary standard, which, since the passage of No Child Left Behind, is generally the standard used for reporting adequate yearly progress (AYP), and standards that are above or below the primary standard. Most states refer to their primary standard as proficient or meets the standard.
By matching percentages of students reported to be meeting state standards in schools
participating in NAEP with the distribution of performance of students in those schools on NAEP, cutpoints on the NAEP scale can be identified that are equivalent to the scores required to meet a state&#8217;s standards.
]]></description><pubDate>4/2/2008</pubDate><link>http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2008474</link></item><item><title>Comparison Between NAEP and State Mathematics Assessment Results: 2003</title><description><![CDATA[In late January through early March of 2003, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) grade 4 and 8 reading and mathematics
assessments were administered to representative samples of students in approximately 100 public schools in each state. The results of these assessments were announced in November 2003. Each state also carried out its own reading and
mathematics assessments in the 2002-2003 school year, most including grades 4 and 8. This report addresses the question of whether the results published by NAEP are comparable to the results published by individual state testing programs.  
OBJECTIVES: 
Comparisons to address the following four questions are based purely on results of testing and do not compare the content of NAEP and state assessments.

  How do states&#8217; achievement standards compare with each other and with NAEP?  Are NAEP and state assessment results correlated across schools?  Do NAEP and state assessments agree on achievement trends over time?  Do NAEP and state assessments agree on achievement gaps between subgroups?  
How do states&#8217; achievement standards compare with each other and with NAEP? Both NAEP and State Education Agencies have set achievement, or performance, standards for mathematics and have identified test score criteria for determining the percentages of students who meet the standards. Most states have multiple performance standards, and these can be categorized into a primary standard, which, since the passage of No Child Left Behind, is generally the standard used for reporting adequate yearly progress (AYP), and standards that are above or below the primary standard. Most states refer to their primary standard as proficient or meets the standard.
By matching percentages of students reported to be meeting state standards in schools participating in NAEP with the distribution of performance of students in those schools on NAEP, cutpoints on the NAEP scale can be identified that are equivalent to the scores required to meet a state&#8217;s standards.
]]></description><pubDate>4/2/2008</pubDate><link>http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2008475</link></item><item><title>Characteristics of the 100 Largest Public Elementary and Secondary School Districts in the United States: 2004-05</title><description><![CDATA[This annual report provides basic information from the Common Core of Data about the nation&#8217;s largest public school districts in the 2004-05 school year.  The data include such characteristics as the numbers of students and teachers, number of high school completers and the averaged freshman graduation rate, and revenues and expenditures.  Several findings were: 

These 100 largest districts enrolled 23 percent of all public school students, and employed 20 percent of all public school teachers, in 2004-05.

The 100 largest districts produced 20 percent of all high school completers (both diploma and other completion credential recipients) in 2003-04.  Across these districts, the averaged freshman graduation rate was 70.2 percent.  

Four states -- California, Florida, Texas, and New York -- accounted for more than half of the 100 largest public school districts.

Current per-pupil expenditures in fiscal year 2003 ranged from a low of $4,351 in the Puerto Rico School District  to a high of $17,337 in Boston, Massachusetts.]]></description><pubDate>4/1/2008 9:55:00 AM</pubDate><link>http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2008335</link></item><item><title>Characteristics of Private Schools in the United States: Results from the 2005-2006 Private School Universe Survey</title><description><![CDATA[This report on the 2005-2006 Private School Universe Survey presents data on private schools in the United States with grades kindergarten through twelve by selected characteristics.]]></description><pubDate>4/1/2008 9:55:00 AM</pubDate><link>http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2008315</link></item><item><title>Digest of Education Statistics, 2007</title><description><![CDATA[The 43rd in a series of publications initiated in 1962, the Digest&#8217;s primary purpose is to provide a compilation of statistical information covering the broad field of American education from prekindergarten through graduate school. The Digest contains data on a variety of topics, including the number of schools and colleges, teachers, enrollments, and graduates, in addition to educational attainment, finances, and federal funds for education, libraries, and international comparisons.  ]]></description><pubDate>3/25/2008 9:55:00 AM</pubDate><link>http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2008022</link></item><item><title>2003-2004 Private School Universe Survey (PSS) Data File User's Manual and Survey Documentation</title><description><![CDATA[This manual describes the 2003-2004 Private School Universe Survey (PSS) data collection activities, processing, and data files. The 2003-2004 PSS public-use data file user's manual is also included.]]></description><pubDate>3/20/2008</pubDate><link>http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2008314</link></item><item><title>Trends in Undergraduate Borrowing II: Federal Student Loans in 1995-96, 1999-2000, and 2003-04</title><description><![CDATA[This Postsecondary Education Descriptive Analysis Report uses data from the National Postsecondary Student Aid Studies (NPSAS:96, NPSAS:2000 and NPSAS:04) to examine trends in Stafford loan borrowing among undergraduates.
 Since 1995-96, borrowing of subsidized Stafford loans increased among low-income dependent undergraduates and among independent students at all income levels. The rate of borrowing any Stafford loan (subsidized or unsubsidized) increased among all but those in the lowest income category, for both dependent and independent undergraduates alike. While the average amount of subsidized loans has leveled off over time, unsubsidized loans have continued to grow both in the amount of the average loan as well as in the percentage of borrowers. Unlike subsidized loans, interest on an unsubsidized loan accrues and is usually added to the principal of the loan while the student is enrolled in school and not yet in repayment. This study found that between 1995-96 and 2003-04, an increasing proportion of both dependent and independent student borrowers at all income levels took out unsubsidized loans either alone or in addition to their subsidized loans. This was true particularly among independent students whose higher loan limits allow more of them to take out both types of loans. The Stafford loan program permits dependent students to take out both subsidized and unsubsidized loans, but the combined amount cannot exceed the maximum amount of a single loan. In 2003-04, about three-fourths (73 percent) of all dependent student borrowers took out the annual maximum amount allowed in subsidized and unsubsidized Stafford loans combined. This was an increase from 57 percent in 1995-96.]]></description><pubDate>3/18/2008</pubDate><link>http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2008179rev</link></item><item><title>Mini-Digest of Education Statistics 2007</title><description><![CDATA[This publication is a pocket-sized compilation of statistical information covering the broad field of American education from kindergarten through graduate school. The statistical highlights are excerpts from the Digest of Education of Statistics, 2007. ]]></description><pubDate>3/13/2008</pubDate><link>http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2008023</link></item><item><title>Employees in Postsecondary Institutions, Fall 2006, and Salaries of Full-Time Instructional Faculty, 2006-07</title><description><![CDATA[This report presents information from the Winter 2006-07 Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) web-based data collection.  Tabulations represent data requested from all postsecondary institutions participating in Title IV federal student financial aid programs. The tables in this publication include data on the number of staff employed in Title IV postsecondary institutions in fall 2006 by primary occupational activity, length of contract/teaching period, employment status, salary class interval, faculty and tenure status, academic rank, race/ethnicity, and gender. Also included are tables on the number of full-time instructional faculty employed in Title IV postsecondary institutions in 2006-07 by length of contract/teaching period, academic rank, gender, and average salaries.]]></description><pubDate>3/11/2008</pubDate><link>http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2008172</link></item><item><title>Ten Years After College: Comparing the Employment Experiences of 1992-93 Bachelor&amp;#8217;s Degree Recipients with Academic and Career-Oriented Majors</title><description><![CDATA[Using longitudinal data from the 1992-93 Baccalaureate and Beyond Study (B&amp;B:93/03) representing about 1.2 million bachelor&#8217;s degree recipients that year, this report examines college graduates&#8217; work experiences in 1994, 1997, and 2003, describing their labor force status, employment stability and intensity, occupations and industries, salaries and benefits, and perceptions about their jobs. It compares the experiences of graduates with academic and career-oriented undergraduate majors. About half of all the graduates (51 percent) were employed and not enrolled at all three follow-ups, but the other half moved into and out of the workforce, often to pursue further education. By 2003, some 46 percent of graduates had ever been unemployed (not working, but looking for work) since they had graduated, but unemployment became less prevalent the longer graduates had been out of college. By 2003, most graduates were settled in a job they considered a career and used their education, and the average salary for a graduate employed full time at one job, adjusted for inflation, had roughly doubled since 1994. A majority were satisfied with their pay, fringe benefits, job security, and opportunity for promotion. Compared with graduates with academic undergraduate majors, those with career-oriented majors appeared to establish themselves in the labor force earlier and relatively fewer obtained additional education.]]></description><pubDate>3/4/2008 9:55:00 AM</pubDate><link>http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2008155</link></item></channel></rss>
