Source: Simone Robers, Jijun Zhang, Jennifer Truman, National Center for Education Statistics, NCES 2012002, February 2012
From the abstract:
A joint effort by the Bureau of Justice Statistics and National Center for Education Statistics, this annual report examines crime occurring in school as well as on the way to and from school. It provides the most current detailed statistical information to inform the Nation on the nature of crime in schools. This report presents data on crime at school from the perspectives of students, teachers, principals, and the general population from an array of sources–the National Crime Victimization Survey, the School Crime Supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey, the Youth Risk Behavior Survey, the School Survey on Crime and Safety and the School and Staffing Survey. Data on crime away from school are also presented to place school crime in the context of crime in the larger society.
Source: U.S. Government Accountability Office, GAO 12-248, February 15, 2012
From the summary:
The paid early child care and education (ECCE) workforce was made up of approximately 1.8 million workers in a range of positions, most of whom had relatively low levels of education and income, according to Census’s 2009 American Community Survey (ACS) data. For example, nearly half of all child care workers had a high school degree or less as did 20 percent of preschool teachers. Average yearly income ranged from $11,500 for a child care worker working in a child’s home to $18,000 for a preschool teacher. Experts and government officials that we spoke with said, in general, better educated and trained ECCE workers are more effective than those with less education and training. They also noted the need for more comprehensive workforce data–such as on workers with specialized ECCE training. While existing ECCE workforce data provide valuable insight into worker characteristics, critical data gaps exist. For example, these data omit key segments of ECCE workers, such as some caregivers who provide child care in their own homes, and also do not separately identify preschool teachers working in elementary schools. HHS and Education have taken steps to improve ECCE workforce data, such as providing guidance and funding to states to encourage the collection of state-level data and working with federal agencies to improve workforce data collected nationally.
HHS, Education, and the states use training, scholarships, and other activities to improve ECCE worker quality, but program and funding data are scarce. For example, HHS funded online training to help Head Start teachers meet new teacher credentialing requirements. Both HHS and Education have collaborated on initiatives to improve ECCE worker quality, such as the Race to the Top-Early Learning Challenge Grants. For the most part, however, neither HHS nor Education track expenditures on worker quality improvement. In our survey, states reported that the most common workforce improvement activities were in-service training, coaching, and mentoring for current workers (all 37 state survey respondents) and scholarships to workers enrolled in higher education programs (34 states). Of those who knew funding sources for these activities, states reported relying primarily on state and federal child care funds.
Source: Tai Phan, Laura Hardesty, Jamie Hug, Cindy Sheckells, National Center for Education Statistics, NCES 2012365, December 2011
From the summary:
The Academic Libraries: 2010 First Look summarizes services, staff, collections, and expenditures of academic libraries in 2- and 4-year, degree-granting postsecondary institutions in the 50 states and the District of Columbia.
Source: National Research Council, 2012
Early childhood care and education (ECCE) settings offer an opportunity to provide children with a solid beginning in all areas of their development. The quality and efficacy of these settings depend largely on the individuals within the ECCE workforce. Policy makers need a complete picture of ECCE teachers and caregivers in order to tackle the persistent challenges facing this workforce. The IOM and the National Research Council hosted a workshop to describe the ECCE workforce and outline its parameters. Speakers explored issues in defining and describing the workforce, the marketplace of ECCE, the effects of the workforce on children, the contextual factors that shape the workforce, and opportunities for strengthening ECCE as a profession.
Source: Julie Underwood and Julie F. Mead, Phi Delta Kappan Magazine, V93 N6, March 2012
From the abstract:
Coordinated efforts to introduce model legislation aimed at defunding and dismantling public schools is the signature work of this conservative organization.
Public education has historically been in the public and political eye. Then came 2011 and the high profile and well televised protests in Wisconsin, Ohio and Indiana. In each case Republican Governors and Republican controlled state legislatures had introduced substantially similar bills that sought sweeping changes to each state’s collective bargaining statutes and various school funding provisions. What was going on? How could elected officials in multiple states suddenly introduce such similar legislation? The answer: The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), which has become a very efficient mechanism for corporations to exercise political power — and they have.
Source: Harry J. Holzer, Issues in Science and Technology, Vol. 28 no. 2, Winter 2012
A competitive grants program could enable the states to implement evidence-based training programs that would prepare workers for well-paid, highly productive jobs.
Source: Association of Research Libraries, 2012
Data on University & Library Total Expenditures (formerly known as the E&G Survey) are used to produce charts and tables showing what fractions of total university spending have gone towards the research library….
Since 2003, this information has not been gathered in a separate survey; instead IPEDS data regarding total university expenditures have been used with the Total Library Expenditures data from the ARL Statistics to produce charts and tables showing Total Library Expenditures as a Percentage of Total University Expenditures.
• Machine-Readable University & Library Expenditures Data, 1982-2009
• University & Library Expenditures, Annual Graph Data, 1966-2009
• Library Expenditures as a Percent of Total University Expenditures, 1966-2009 (17 Universities)
• Library Expenditures as a Percent of Total University Expenditures, 1982-2009 (40 Universities)
• Library Expenditures as a Percent of Total University Expenditures v. Total University Expenditures, 1982-2009 (Select Data)
• Library Expenditures as a Percent of Total University Expenditures, 1982-2009 (Canada v. US Public v. US Private)
Source: Center for the Study of Education Policy at Illinois State University and the State Higher Education Executive Officers, January 2012
Since 1960, Grapevine has published annual compilations of data on state tax support for higher education, including general fund appropriations for universities, colleges, community colleges, and state higher education agencies. Each year’s Grapevine survey has asked states for tax appropriations data for the new fiscal year and for revisions (if any) to data reported in previous years.
As of fiscal year 2010, Grapevine tables–including both tax and non-tax support–have been produced by Illinois State University’s Center for the Study of Education Policy in cooperation with the State Higher Education Executive Officers (SHEEO). The Grapevine survey has been consolidated with the annual survey used by SHEEO in its State Higher Education Finance (SHEF) project. This consolidated questionnaire asks for data that are compiled in a new State Support for Higher Education database. This database, in turn, is used to produce both the annual Grapevine tables, which provide a first look at state appropriations for the new fiscal year, and the annual SHEF report, which offers a more complete examination of trends in total state support for higher education, factoring in inflation and enrollment. The SHEF report for FY2011 will be released shortly by SHEEO.
The results of the Grapevine survey for fiscal year 2011-12 (FY12), including tax and nontax monies, are compiled in the national tables available on this website. The FY12 data summarized in these tables were reported to SHEEO by the states from September 2011 through mid-January 2012. Andy Carlson of SHEEO led the data collection effort. For further information see press releases issued on January 23, 2012 from Illinois State University’s Center for the Study of Education Policy and the State Higher Education Executive Officers.
Source: Mary H. Harris, Vincent G. Munley, Education Finance and Policy, Vol. 6, No. 4, Fall 2011
From the abstract:
One distinction between the markets for corporate and municipal bonds involves institutional constraints that apply to some municipal bond issues. This research focuses on how public finance institutions, in particular explicit debt limits and referenda requirements, affect the borrowing cost of individual school district bond issues. The empirical model specifies as the dependent variable the true interest cost of issuing debt. The results suggest that the presence of referenda requirements for the approval of annual school district budgets imposes an additional cost for borrowing funds.
Source: Data.gov, 2012
This web site serves as a central guide for education data resources including high-value data sets, data visualization tools, resources for the classroom, applications created from open data and more. These datasets have been gathered from various agencies to provide detailed information on the state of education on all levels, from cradle to career and beyond. Check back frequently because the site will be updated as more datasets and tools become available.