Search Results

The National Household Education Surveys Program (NHES) provides descriptive data on the educational activities of the U.S. population and offers researchers, educators, and policymakers a variety of statistics on the condition of education in the United States. The NHES surveys cover learning at all ages, from early childhood to school age through adulthood. The most recent data collection in 2012 consisted of two surveys: Parent and Family Involvement in Education and Early Childhood Program Participation. Parent and Family Involvement in Education (PFI) captures data on parent engagement and school choice for students in kindergarten through 12th grade. Parents are surveyed on a range of topics, including assistance with homework, family activities, and involvement in school affairs. Arts-related inquiries within PFI include frequency of arts and crafts activities, attendance at school events such as plays or science fairs, engagement in artistic endeavors, visits to cultural institutions like art galleries or museums, and potential interference of health conditions with participation in extracurricular activities.

The 2021-2022 Study of Family and Staff Well-Being in Head Start FACES Programs (2021-2022 study), builds on the Head Start Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES), which has been a source of national information about Head Start programs and participants since 1997. The motivation and goals of the Study of Family and Staff Well-Being in Head Start Family and Child Experiences Survey Programs (the 2021-2022 study) came from a need that arose as the COVID-19 pandemic continued into another year of affecting Head Start families' and staff's lives. The 2021-2022 study included two components. Firstly, the Program, Staff, and Family Study , was conducted in 60 programs, and included the collection of parent surveys and Teacher Child Reports (TCRs) in fall 2021 and spring 2022, as well as a teacher survey in fall 2021. Secondly, the Program and Staff Study , conducted in the 60 programs participating in the Program, Staff, and Family Study plus an additional 120 programs, included the collection of program director, center director, and teacher surveys in spring 2022. The 2021-2022 study aimed to describe the national population of Head Start programs, centers, teachers, classrooms, and children during the 2021-2022 program year. However, the Data Producers were unable to fully meet this goal because of challenges related to the COVID-19 pandemic. A nationally representative sample of Head Start programs was selected. However, fewer of the programs participated than expected. Probability samples of centers, teachers, and children within the participating programs were selected. Weights are available for analysis to account for the probability that children and their teachers, centers, and programs were selected for the study. This lessens the risk of bias due to study non-participation and survey nonresponse; and provide results that represent, to the extent possible, all programs, centers, teachers, classrooms, and children in Head Start. The responding sample may not fully represent the population due to higher-than-expected non-response that may not have been adequately addressed with weighting adjustments. Despite these limitations, the 2021-2022 study sample design supports many analyses for programs and teachers, as well as children. The data from the programs in the Program, Staff, and Family Study can address questions about the children and parents who participate in the program, including about children's development across one year in the Head Start program for both newly entering children and those returning for a second year. The study also supports research questions related to subgroups of interest, such as families with low income and specific racial/ethnic groups, as well as policy issues that emerge during the study. In addition, the research questions investigate the characteristics of Head Start programs, centers, and teachers, and the classrooms they teach. Users can use the same data to answer questions about the relationships between program and classroom characteristics and child and family well-being. The data from the larger sample of programs in the Program and Staff Study are most useful for answering questions about Head Start programs, classrooms, teachers, and program and center directors.

The Head Start Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES) is a major source of information on Head Start programs and the children and families they serve. Since 1997, FACES has conducted studies in a nationally representative sample of Head Start programs, but has historically not included Region XI (programs operated by federally-recognized tribes), whose programs are designed to serve predominantly American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) children and families. The American Indian and Alaska Native Head Start Family and Child Experiences Survey 2015 (AI/AN FACES 2015), the first national study of Region XI AI/AN Head Start children and families, is designed to fill this information gap. The design of AI/AN FACES 2015 has been informed by members of the AI/AN FACES 2015 Workgroup which includes tribal Head Start directors, researchers with expertise working with tribal communities, Mathematica Policy Research study staff, and federal officials from the Office of Head Start, Region XI, and the Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation. Building on FACES as the foundation, members of the AI/AN FACES 2015 Workgroup have shared insights and information on the kinds of information needed about children and families served by Region XI AI/AN Head Start programs (including children's development and school readiness, parent and family demographics, health, and program engagement, and teacher, classroom, and program characteristics). Members also provided input on recruitment practices and study methods that are responsive to the unique cultural and self-governing contexts of tribal Head Start programs. Data collection with Region XI children, families, classrooms, and programs took place in the Fall of 2015 and the Spring of 2016. Twenty-one Region XI Head Start programs participated. Procedures for tribal review and approval in each of those 21 communities were followed. Information about this study has been shared broadly with tribal Head Start programs and tribal leaders via OHS tribal consultations, nationally-broadcast webinars, National Indian Head Start Directors' Association Board of Directors (NIHSDA) annual conferences, the 2016 ACF National Research Conference on Early Childhood, and the Secretary's Tribal Advisory Council (STAC) December 2014 and 2016 meetings.

Historically there has been little information about children attending Region XI Head Start programs (programs operated by federally recognized tribes); however, in 2015 the first AIAN FACES study provided a national picture of children, families, and programs in Region XI. Native voices were at the forefront of this study in the AIAN FACES 2015 Workgroup, comprised of Region XI Head Start directors, researchers, and federal officials. AIAN FACES 2019 is the second round of this national study of Region XI Head Start children and families and their experiences in Head Start programs and classrooms. The AIAN FACES 2019 study design is the same as the design for AIAN FACES 2015. AIAN FACES 2019 convened its own workgroup with a composition similar to the 2015 workgroup. The AIAN FACES 2019 Workgroup provided advice on study activities from measurement updates to data collection and dissemination. AIAN FACES 2019 sought to (1) describe the strengths and needs of all children in Region XI, (2) provide an accurate picture of all children and families who participate in Region XI (AIAN and non-AIAN), and (3) understand the cultural and linguistic experiences of Native children and families in Region XI AIAN Head Start. Data collection with Region XI children, families, classrooms, and programs took place in the fall of 2019 and the spring of 2020. In both fall and spring, the study collected data from parent surveys and teacher child reports. In fall 2019, the study conducted direct child assessments. In spring 2020, teachers, center directors, and program directors completed surveys. Twenty-two Region XI Head Start programs participated. The study followed procedures for tribal review and approval in each of those 22 communities. AIAN FACES 2019 also planned to conduct direct child assessments and classroom observations in spring 2020. Due to the COVID-19 (for coronavirus disease 2019) pandemic, AIAN FACES cancelled in-person data collection (direct child assessments and classroom observations) after the second week of March, 2020. Therefore, the study was only able to collect direct child assessment and classroom observation data in seven of its 22 programs. For more information on the spring 2020 direct child assessments and classroom observations, see the Spring 2020 Partial Sample User's Manual. Researchers may request access to the Spring 2020 Partial Sample Data File containing these partial data from direct child assessments and classroom observations as part of their application. The data are provided in a separate file for exploratory purposes only. These partial data cannot be used to develop estimates representing Region XI children as a whole.

The American Perceptions of Artists Survey 2002, sponsored by the Urban Institute and conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International (PSRAI), was a benchmark study of the general public's opinions about the lifestyles and work of artists in the United States. The purpose of the study was to examine public perceptions of artists from several angles, including general interest in news or current events related to artists; awareness of different arts disciplines; artists' contributions to society and their local communities; personal work as an artist and interaction with artists. The series consists of a national survey of adults in the continental United States and nine local surveys conducted in the following metropolitan areas: Boston, Chicago, Cleveland, Houston, Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco, Seattle, and Washington, D.C. Computer assisted telephone interviews (CATI) were conducted from May 21 to August 18, 2002. The number of respondents across the data files ranges from 500 to 5,507.

An Analysis of the Effects of an Academic Summer Program for Middle School Students, 2012, funded by the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation's Social Innovation Fund, was conducted in the Summer of 2012 in three school districts (District A, B, C) that were new partnerships for the Building Educated Leaders for Life program (BELL). Of the three study districts, District A and B offered the BELL program in one middle school each; District C offered the program in three schools. Several types of quantitative data were collected about students and BELL teachers in the study. The nature and purpose of these data sources are described below. (1) Spring (baseline) characteristics and test scores:During the application process, parents provided information about their child's socioeconomic characteristics (racial or ethnic group, parents' education, and so on. In addition, schools provided information about whether students in the study were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, whether they had an individualized education plan (IEP), and whether English was their second language. Schools also provided students' scores on the spring 2012 math and reading assessments administered by their state; these scores were used to determine whether students were proficient, based on local cutoff scores on their state test. (2) Attendance records: BELL provided the evaluation team with the attendance records of students in the study during summer 2012, including any students in the non-BELL group who may have attended the program. (3) Fall reading and math tests: Students in the study were encouraged to take standardized tests in math and reading in fall 2012. In the average study district, students took the tests six weeks after the end of the program, or one week after the start of the school year. Students' reading achievement was assessed using the Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Examination (GRADE), and their math achievement was assessed with its math counterpart, the Group Mathematics Assessment and Diagnostic Examination (GMADE). The GRADE contains two subtests (reading comprehension and vocabulary), and the GMADE contains three (concepts, operations, and processes). (4) Fall student survey: In the same session as the GRADE and GMADE were administered, students also completed a short survey asking about the extent to which they were engaged in various aspects of instruction when they returned to school in the fall (for example, whether they paid attention in class and whether they completed their homework on time). The survey also included a set of items asking students to describe their activities during the summer. (5) BELL teacher survey: BELL administers a survey to its teachers as part of regular program monitoring and evaluation activities. The survey captures teachers' characteristics as well as their perceptions of various aspects of the BELL program (such as training, materials, and staffing), of their own performance in the classroom, and of their students' performance and engagement. BELL administers the survey to all of its teachers -- academic (English Language Arts [ELA] or math or both) and enrichment teachers -- as well as mentors (teaching assistants). However, given the academic focus of this evaluation, the target population for the study's purposes was academic teachers who taught students in the study. This collection contains two datasets. Part 1 is a student-level ,dataset that includes all information collected about students in the study sample (baseline data, GRADE and GMADE test scores, student survey data, and attendance data). Part 2 is a teacher survey dataset that includes teachers in the analysis sample (i.e. academic middle school teachers who responded to the survey and who taught students in the study). Demographic information about the students include socioeconomic characteristics like racial or ethnic group, parents' education, and so on. Demographic information about the teachers in the sample include their education and experience backgrounds.

The Artists Training and Career Project, conducted by the Research Center for Arts and Culture (RCAC), studied the training and career choices and patterns of actors, craftspeople, and painters through national surveys of a sampling of artists in each discipline. Topics include training and preparation for painting and craft careers, acceptance in the marketplace, critical evaluation, public response, involvement in professional organizations, and career satisfaction. As a complement to the surveys, RCAC also conducted personal narrative interviews with artists and related experts. The survey of craftspeople was conducted in 1990 and included 1,257 respondents. The survey of painters was conducted in 1991 and included 889 respondents. As well, the survey of actors was conducted in 1992. Funding for the study was provided by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and the New York Foundation for the Arts (NYFA). Also archived at ICPSR and available for research purposes are 1381 ACTORS' EQUITY surveys (AEA) and 528 non-EQUITY (non-AEA) (total 1909). These surveys are in hard copy, and there may be costs associated with access to these materials. Please contact ICPSR-help@umich.edu if you are interested in using the data. Digital data for The Artists Training and Career Project: Actor were not provided for the NADAC or CPANDA version of this data collection.

ArtsEdSearch is an online clearinghouse that collects and summarizes high quality research studies on the impacts of arts education and analyzes their implications for educational policy and practice. ArtsEdSearch is a project of the Arts Education Partnership (AEP), and builds on Critical Links: Learning in the Arts and Student Academic and Social Development, a compendium of research that AEP published in 2002 exploring the impact of arts education on student success in school, life, and work. AEP has developed ArtsEdSearch as a resource for policymakers and education stakeholders and leaders to better understand and articulate the role that arts education can play in preparing students to succeed in the changing contexts of the 21st Century. ArtsEdSearch currently includes summaries of over 200 research studies, syntheses of the major findings of these studies, and implications of the collected research for educational policy. ArtsEdSearch focuses on research examining how education in the arts--in both discrete arts classes and integrated arts lessons--affects students' cognitive, personal, social and civic development, as well as how the integration of the arts into the school curriculum affects educators' instructional practice and engagement in the teaching profession. ArtsEdSearch does not include research studies about how to teach the arts well or about how to assess student content knowledge and technical skill in the arts. These topics are of great importance to ensuring that students receive a high quality arts education and are the subject of other clearinghouses devoted to research on teaching and learning within particular arts disciplines.

This study focuses on bullying prevention in classroom context. An approach was used to address bullying in the classroom through an adapted version of the Classroom Check-up coaching model, which is combined with a mixed-reality simulator called TeachLivE to build teacher skills in preventing, detecting, and responding to bullying.

The Digital Scaffolding for English Language Arts project examines the effect of Visual Syntactic Text Formatting (VSTF) on reading and writing outcomes of 7th and 8th-grade students. VSTF is a technology which reformats text to facilitate reading comprehension. The study used a randomized control trial and was set in an urban school district. The project considers both teachers and students in its implementation of VSTF within the classroom. Variables include demographics, classroom observations, survey responses, annual state assessment results and an end of the year on demand writing task.

The Early Care and Education Leadership Study (ExCELS) was funded by the Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation within the Administration for Children and Families in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The project team was led by Mathematica and the Institute for Early Education Leadership and Innovation at the University of Massachusetts Boston. The project included a descriptive study with the following goals: (1) establish a measure of early care and education (ECE) leadership in center-based settings that serve children birth through age five (not yet in kindergarten) that meets standards for reliability and validity to support its intended use and (2) examine empirical support for the associations among key constructs and outcomes in the theory of change of ECE leadership for quality improvement. Research questions focused on understanding the three key elements that define what leadership in center-based ECE settings looks like: (1) who leaders are, (2) what individuals bring to leadership, and (3) what ECE staff do as leaders. From February through July 2022, the study team recruited 132 ECE centers across four states that served children from birth through age 5 (who are not yet in kindergarten), and that were supported by Head Start grants or Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) subsidies. From March through August 2022, the study team conducted phone interviews to collect center characteristics and learn about the center's staffing structure and leadership positions, and distributed surveys to center managers and teaching staff in recruited centers. The User's Guide for this study can be obtained by selecting "Documentation Only" from the Download tab on this study homepage. The User's Guide and all ExCELS documentation will download in one zip file.

This project assesses the effectiveness of a one-day, 5-hour workshop (ESSI training, hereafter) designed for joint instruction by school staff and police to all school staff. The goal was to promote positive outcomes and reduce police involvement in interactions between staff and students exhibiting inappropriate behavior through increased staff awareness of youth behavior, the functions of the juvenile justice system, and disproportionate minority contact (DMC) in disciplinary action. 1,024 school staff participated in 51 ESSI training sessions throughought the 2015/16 academic year, which also serves as the training year in the longitudinal data. Schools which did not participate in the training served as controls for the participating school. Data were drawn from a panel of students enrolled in either a training or control school, with ten schools in each group. Data on this panel of students was collected for a five-year period, from the 2013/14 through the 2017/18 academic years. School-level data serves as the unit of analysis, as the study's main goal was to test the effects of training on school-wide outcomes. The estimated coefficient indicates small attendance reductions during the post-training phase for the training group. This indicates that most of the differences between the training and control group were statistically insignificant and that there was no pattern of statistically significant positive effects across the training schools. The second set of analyses, performed on student-level data, indicates that male and minority students are more likely to be involved in disciplinary incidents and to receive suspensions or expulsions as a consequence of their behaviors than White and female students.

From 2012 through 2016, MDRC, a non-profit research organization, conducted an evaluation of the scale-up effort of Success for All PowerTeaching in middle-school math. PowerTeaching, a structured cooperative learning program, was designed to do just that. The study was funded by an Investing in Innovation (i3) fund from the U.S. Department of Education. The expansion of PowerTeaching through an i3 grant offers the education field a unique opportunity to learn what it takes to help teachers create cooperative learning environments in their classrooms. The Success for All PowerTeaching scale-up evaluation examines the PowertTeaching implementation and how it impacts five school districts over a two-year period (the 2014-2015 school year through the 2015-2016 school year). It also considers the scale-up process itself - the methods employed and the extent to which the Success for All Foundation (SFAF), the organization that developed and provides technical assistance to schools operating the program, achieved its scale-up goals. The ten data files included in this study contain a range of variable information gathered from student-level test scores, teacher and school principal surveys, school achievement snapshots, teacher logs, and scale-up initiative evaluations. Key variables include district IDs, teacher and principal IDs, baseline and outcome standardized test scores, structural and instructional processes, and records of teacher logs. Demographic variables for students include information on race, gender, special education, free/reduced lunch eligibility, ELL status, and age.

The Expanding Children's Early Learning (ExCEL) Quality Study: Improving Preschool and Early Care and Education (ECE) Instruction through Curricula, Coaching, and Training was funded by Arnold Ventures and conducted by MDRC and its subcontractors, MEF Associates and RTI International. The study consisted of two phases: ExCEL Quality (EQ; 2019-2020) and ExCEL Quality Continuation (EQC; 2020-2021). This collection contains analysis datasets with calculated measures at the child (DS2) and classroom (DS3) levels, a samples dataset for each phase (EQ = DS1, EQC = DS20), and raw data organized by study phase and data source. ExCEL Quality In the EQ study, the research team conducted an experimental study testing two interventions that consisted of curricular and professional development support and that targeted different dimensions of classroom quality, namely: A whole-child intervention that targets structural and interactional aspects of classroom quality, using The Creative Curriculum for Preschool, 6th Edition A domain-specific intervention with a specific scope and sequence that targets instructional aspects of classroom quality, using Connect4Learning, 1st Edition ECE centers were selected across four U.S. localities in Head Start and community-based child care settings and were randomly assigned to one of three research conditions (Creative Curriculum, Connect4Learning, or preschool-as-usual). The project was originally designed to assess the impacts of each of the interventions on the content of instruction, teacher practices, classroom quality, and child outcomes, as well as to collect program implementation data. However, because of the COVID-19 pandemic that began in March of the 2019-2020 school year, adjustments were made to the guiding questions and research aims, data sources, and analysis. ExCEL Quality Continuation The EQC Study was a non-experimental study, aiming to understand ECE teachers' and administrators' experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic (2020-2021 school year). The sample was a subset of the centers that participated in EQ in the 2019-2020 school year (n=26), plus five newly recruited centers. EQC provided stress management workshops and curricular support (Creative Curriculum or Connect4Learning) to participating centers regardless of their original research condition in EQ.

The Fast Response Survey System (FRSS) was established in 1975 by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), United States Department of Education. FRSS is designed to collect issue-oriented data within a relatively short time frame. FRSS collects data from state education agencies, local education agencies, public and private elementary and secondary schools, public school teachers, and public libraries. To ensure minimal burden on respondents, the surveys are generally limited to three pages of questions, with a response burden of about 30 minutes per respondent. Sample sizes are relatively small (usually about 1,000 to 1,500 respondents per survey) so that data collection can be completed quickly. Data are weighted to produce national estimates of the sampled education sector. The sample size is large enough to permit limited breakouts by classification variables. However, as the number of categories within the classification variables increases, the sample size within categories decreases, which results in larger sampling errors for the breakouts by classification variables. The Arts Education Surveys of Elementary School Teachers provide national estimates on arts education and arts instructors in public elementary schools during the 2009-10 school year. This data collection contains three surveys that provide information about music specialists, visual arts specialists, and self-contained classroom teachers. These three surveys are part of a set of seven surveys that collected data on arts education during the 2009-10 school year. In addition to these elementary teacher surveys, the set includes a survey of elementary school principals, a survey of secondary school principals, and two secondary teacher-level surveys. A stratified sample design was used to select teachers and arts specialists (music and visual arts) for the Arts Education Surveys of Elementary School Teachers. Data collection was conducted September 2009 through August 2010. Altogether, 1,148 eligible music specialists, 918 eligible visual arts specialists, and 734 eligible self-contained classroom teachers completed the surveys by web, mail, fax, or telephone. The elementary teacher surveys collected data on the availability of curriculum-based arts education activities outside of regular school hours, teaching load of music and visual arts specialists in elementary schools, teacher participation in various professional development activities, the ways in which self-contained classroom teachers teach arts education as part of their instructional program, and teachers' use of formal methods of assessment of students' achievement in the arts. Furthermore, teachers were also asked to provide administrative information such as school level, school enrollment size, school community type, and percent of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch.

The Fast Response Survey System (FRSS) was established in 1975 by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), United States Department of Education. FRSS is designed to collect issue-oriented data within a relatively short time frame. FRSS collects data from state education agencies, local education agencies, public and private elementary and secondary schools, public school teachers, and public libraries. To ensure minimal burden on respondents, the surveys are generally limited to three pages of questions, with a response burden of about 30 minutes per respondent. Sample sizes are relatively small (usually about 1,000 to 1,500 respondents per survey) so that data collection can be completed quickly. Data are weighted to produce national estimates of the sampled education sector. The sample size is large enough to permit limited breakouts by classification variables. However, as the number of categories within the classification variables increases, the sample size within categories decreases, which results in larger sampling errors for the breakouts by classification variables. The Arts Education Surveys of Secondary School Teachers provide national estimates on arts education and arts instructors in public secondary schools during the 2009-10 school year. This data collection contains two surveys that provide information about music specialists and visual arts specialists. These two surveys are part of a set of seven surveys that collected data on arts education during the 2009-10 school year. In addition to these secondary teacher surveys, the set includes a survey of elementary school principals, a survey of secondary school principals, and three elementary teacher-level surveys. A stratified sample design was used to select music specialists and visual arts specialists for the Arts Education Surveys of Secondary School Teachers. Data collection was conducted September 2009 through July 2010. Altogether, 1,065 eligible music specialists and 1,046 eligible visual arts specialists completed the surveys by web, mail, fax, or telephone. The secondary teacher surveys collected data on the availability of curriculum-based arts education activities outside of regular school hours; teaching load of music and visual arts specialists in secondary schools; teacher participation in various professional development activities and the perceived impact of such participation on teaching; and teachers' use of formal methods of assessment of students' progress and achievement in the arts. Furthermore, teachers were also asked to provide administrative information such as school level, school enrollment size, school community type, and percent of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch.

The Fast Response Survey System (FRSS) was established in 1975 by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), United States Department of Education. FRSS is designed to collect issue-oriented data within a relatively short time frame. FRSS collects data from state education agencies, local education agencies, public and private elementary and secondary schools, public school teachers, and public libraries. To ensure minimal burden on respondents, the surveys are generally limited to three pages of questions, with a response burden of about 30 minutes per respondent. Sample sizes are relatively small (usually about 1,000 to 1,500 respondents per survey) so that data collection can be completed quickly. Data are weighted to produce national estimates of the sampled education sector. The sample size is large enough to permit limited breakouts by classification variables. However, as the number of categories within the classification variables increases, the sample size within categories decreases, which results in larger sampling errors for the breakouts by classification variables. The Elementary School Arts Education Survey, Fall 2009 data provide national estimates on student access to arts education and resources available for such instruction in public elementary schools during fall 2009. This is one of a set of seven surveys that collected data on arts education during the 2009-10 school year. In addition to this survey, the set includes a survey of secondary school principals, three elementary teacher-level surveys, and two secondary teacher-level surveys. A stratified sample design was used to select principals for this survey. Data collection was conducted September 2009 through June 2010, and 988 eligible principals completed the survey by web, mail, fax, or telephone. The elementary school survey collected data on the availability and characteristics of music, visual arts, dance, and drama/theatre instruction; the type of space used for arts instruction; the availability of curriculum guides for arts teachers to follow; the availability of curriculum-based arts education activities outside of regular school hours; and whether those teaching the subject are arts specialists. Principals also reported on school or district provision of teacher professional development in the arts; arts education programs, activities, and events; and school-community partnerships. Principals were also asked to provide administrative information such as school instructional level, school enrollment size, community type, and percent of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch.

The Fast Response Survey System (FRSS) was established in 1975 by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), United States Department of Education. FRSS is designed to collect issue-oriented data within a relatively short time frame. FRSS collects data from state education agencies, local education agencies, public and private elementary and secondary schools, public school teachers, and public libraries. To ensure minimal burden on respondents, the surveys are generally limited to three pages of questions, with a response burden of about 30 minutes per respondent. Sample sizes are relatively small (usually about 1,000 to 1,500 respondents per survey) so that data collection can be completed quickly. Data are weighted to produce national estimates of the sampled education sector. The sample size is large enough to permit limited breakouts by classification variables. However, as the number of categories within the classification variables increases, the sample size within categories decreases, which results in larger sampling errors for the breakouts by classification variables. The Secondary School Arts Education Survey, Fall 2009 data provide national estimates on student access to arts education and the resources available for such instruction in public secondary schools during fall 2009. This is one of a set of seven surveys that collected data on arts education during the 2009-10 school year. In addition to this survey, the set includes a survey of elementary school principals, three elementary teacher-level surveys, and two secondary teacher-level surveys. A stratified sample design was used to select principals for this survey. Data collection was conducted September 2009 through June 2010, and 1,014 eligible principals completed the survey by web, mail, fax, or telephone. The secondary school survey collected data on the availability of music, visual arts, dance, and drama/theatre instruction; enrollment in these courses, the type of space used for arts instruction, the availability of curriculum guides for arts teachers to follow, and the number of arts teachers who are specialists in the subject. Principals reported on graduation requirements for coursework in the arts; school or district provision of teacher professional development in the arts; and arts education programs, activities, and events. Principals also reported on community partnerships and support from outside sources for arts education. Furthermore, principals were also asked to provide administrative information such as school instructional level, school enrollment size, community type, and percent of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch.

The Fast Response Survey System (FRSS) was established in 1975 by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), United States Department of Education. FRSS is designed to collect issue-oriented data within a relatively short time frame. FRSS collects data from state education agencies, local education agencies, public and private elementary and secondary schools, public school teachers, and public libraries. To ensure minimal burden on respondents, the surveys are generally limited to three pages of questions, with a response burden of about 30 minutes per respondent. Sample sizes are relatively small (usually about 1,000 to 1,500 respondents per survey) so that data collection can be completed quickly. Reported data are weighted to produce national estimates of the sampled education sector. The sample size permits limited breakouts by classification variables. However, as the number of categories within the classification variables increases, the sample size within categories decreases, which results in larger sampling errors for the breakouts by classification variables. The Teachers' Use of Educational Technology in U.S. Public Schools, 2009 survey provides national estimates on the availability and use of educational technology among teachers in public elementary and secondary schools during 2009. This is one of a set of three surveys (at the district, school, and teacher levels) that collected data on a range of educational technology resources. A stratified multistage sample design was used to select teachers for this study. Data collection was conducted September 2008 through July 2009, and 3,159 eligible teachers completed the survey by web, mail, fax, or telephone. The survey asked respondents to report information on the use of computers and Internet access in the classroom; availability and use of computing devices, software, and school or district networks (including remote access) by teachers; students' use of educational technology; teachers' preparation to use educational technology for instruction; and technology-related professional development activities. Respondents reported quantities for the following: computers located in the classroom every day, computers that can be brought into the classroom, and computers with Internet access. Data on the availability and frequency of using computers and other technology devices during instructional time were also collected. Respondents reported on students' use of educational technology resources during classes and teachers' use of modes of technology to communicate with parents and students. Additional survey topics included teacher training and preparation to effectively use educational technology for instruction, and teachers' opinions related to statements about their participation in professional development for educational technology. Respondents were also asked for administrative information such as school instructional level, school enrollment size, main teaching assignment, and years of experience.

Low-income preschool children experience greater risks to their social and emotional development than their more affluent peers. These gaps are observed before children begin their formal schooling, and they remain or increase during the elementary school years. Since social and emotional risks may compromise children's future mental health and peer relationships, addressing them is important in its own right. In addition, social-emotional competence may aid learning: children who have difficulty regulating their emotions and behaviors have been found to receive less instruction, to be less engaged in and less positive about their role as learners, and to have fewer opportunities for learning from peers. The Head Start CARES (Classroom-based Approaches and Resources for Emotion and Social skill promotion) demonstration tests three distinct approaches to enhancing children's social-emotional development on a large scale within the Head Start system - the largest federally funded early-childhood education program in the United States. Conceived and sponsored by the Office of Head Start and the Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation in the Administration for Children and Families within the United States Department of Health and Human Services, the Head Start CARES demonstration was conducted by MDRC, a nonprofit, nonpartisan education and social policy research organization, in collaboration with MEF Associates and several academic partners. The three evidence-based social-emotional interventions selected for the Head Start CARES evaluation included: The Incredible Years Teacher Training Program (IY), Preschool PATHS (PATHS), and a one-year version of Tools of the Mind- Play (Tools). The interventions are referred to as "enhancements" because they enriched and complemented existing practices and curricula used in Head Start classrooms. These enhancements represent three "types" of social-emotional programming. That is, while all three were aimed at children's social-emotional development, they varied in their approach to changing this set of child outcomes by targeting somewhat different teacher practices, because they were built on differing theories about how social and emotional skills develop. Baseline and Follow-up Class-level Impact Analysis Data Files Data included in class-level data files were collected from external observers and teachers through two sources: Classroom Observations and Teacher Self-Surveys. Classroom Observations were conducted by observers blind to treatment status who observed the classrooms participating in the study in four different sessions at Spring Baseline and Pre-K Follow-up. This source includes the Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS) scores and the Adapted Teaching Style Rating Scale (Adapted-TSRS) scores. Teacher Self-Surveys were collected from lead teachers at Spring Baseline and Pre-K Follow-up. This data source includes information on classroom composition as well as teacher demographics, teaching experience, level of stress and depression, and professional relationship with peers and supervisors. Child-level Impact Analysis Data File Data included in this file were collected at Fall Baseline, Pre-K Follow-up and K Follow-up from teachers, children and their parents through three sources: Teacher Reports on Individual Children, Direct Child Assessments and Parent Surveys. Teacher Reports on Individu,al Children (Teacher Reports) were collected at Fall Baseline, Pre-K Follow-up and K Follow-up. Lead teachers filled out surveys for each child separately, including questions about the child's social skills and behavior, the child's specific knowledge and skills, and the teacher's relationship with the child. Teacher reports were collected for both 4-year-olds and 3-year-olds at Fall Baseline and Pre-K Follow-up, but were not collected for 3-year-olds at K Follow-up. As a cover page to the Teacher Report, a shortened version of the Teacher Self-Survey was collected at K Follow-up and those data are included in this dataset. Direct Child Assessments were conducted at Fall Baseline and Pre-K Follow-up. The dataset comprises data on a set of tasks measuring different skills for each child separately, including social and emotional skills, self-regulation skills and academic skills. Direct Child Assessments were collected for 4-year- olds only. Parent Surveys were collected at Fall Baseline and K Follow-up. The survey was administered by phone and includes information on family demographics, parent-teacher involvement, parent's perception of school safety, child's social skills and behavior problems, parental level of stress and depression, and household composition and income. Parent Surveys were collected for 4-year-olds only. Class-level Implementation Analysis Data File This data file includes data collected from coaches, trainers and teachers on teacher training, classroom-based coaching, and classroom implementation. The data included in this dataset were collected through five separate instruments: (1) Teacher Training Attendance Forms, (2) Coach Weekly Logs, (3) Coach Monthly Fidelity Logs, (4) Trainer Fidelity Logs, and (5) Teacher's View of the Enhancement. Data collected from the first four data sources were collected multiple times during the implementation year while the fifth was collected once at the beginning of the implementation year. The instruments were administered through the Head Start CARES management information system (MIS) with the exception of the Teacher Training Attendance Forms, which were collected on paper. The file also includes some Teacher Self-Survey variables. Data were collected for program group classrooms only. Coach-level Implementation Analysis Data File This data file includes data collected from coaches and trainers on classroom-based coaching. The data included in this dataset were collected through five separate instruments: (1) Teacher Training Attendance Forms, (2) Trainer Supervision Logs, (3) Trainer Logs of Coach Quality, (4) Coach Demographics Survey, and (5) Coach End-of-Year Reflections. The instruments were administered through the Head Start CARES management information system (MIS) with the exception of the Teacher Training Attendance Forms, which were collected on paper. Audiotape Analysis Data File The audiotape data file includes data created using qualitative information (audiotape transcripts of coach-teacher meetings) that can be used to conduct analyses on one of the two components of the professional development model for the Head Start CARES demonstration: classroom-based coaching. Child-level Tracking Data File The child-level tracking data file includes parent-reported data collected in elementary school for children from the Head Start CARES sample. It includes inform,ation from parents about children's location and grade, social skills and problem behaviors at home, and receipt of special services.

The Head Start Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES) has been a source of information on the Head Start program and the children and families it serves. The 2019 Head Start Family and Child Experiences Survey, or FACES 2019, is the seventh in a series of national studies of Head Start, with earlier studies conducted in 1997, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2009, and 2014. It includes nationally representative samples of Head Start programs and centers, classrooms, and children and their families during the 2019-2020 program year. Data from surveys of Head Start program and center directors and classroom teachers provide descriptive information about program policies and practices, classroom activities, and the background of Head Start staff. These data compromise the Classroom Study. A sample of these programs also provides data from parent surveys, teacher child reports, and direct child assessments as part of the Classroom + Child Outcomes Study. FACES 2019 is designed to help policymakers address current policy questions and to support programs and practitioners working with Head Start families. According to the study design, FACES would have assessed children's readiness for school, surveyed parents, and asked teachers to provide information on children in both fall 2019 and spring 2020. In response to the COVID-19 (for coronavirus disease 2019) pandemic, however, FACES 2019 cancelled the first piece--the in-person data collection of child assessments in spring 2020. In-person classroom observations as part of the Classroom Study were also cancelled in spring 2020. FACES is designed so that researchers can answer a wide range of research questions that are crucial for aiding program directors and policymakers. FACES 2019 data may be used to describe (1) the quality and characteristics of Head Start programs, teachers, and classrooms; (2) the changes or trends in the quality and characteristics of the classrooms, programs, and staff over time; (3) the school readiness skills and family characteristics of the children who participate in Head Start; (4) the factors or characteristics that predict differences in classroom quality; (5) the changes or trends in the children's outcomes and family characteristics over time; and (6) the factors or characteristics at multiple levels that predict differences in the children's outcomes. The study also supports research questions related to subgroups of interest, such as children with identified disabilities and children who are dual-language learners (DLLs), as well as policy issues that emerge during the study. The study addresses changes in children's outcomes and experiences as well as changes in the characteristics of Head Start classrooms over time and across the rounds of FACES. Some of the questions that are central to FACES include: What are the characteristics of Head Start programs, including structural characteristics and program policies and practices? What are the characteristics and observed quality of Head Start classrooms? What are the characteristics and qualifications of Head Start teachers and management staff? Are the characteristics of programs, classrooms, and staff changing over time? What are the demographic characteristics and home environments of children and families who participate in Head Start? Are family demographic characteristics and aspects of home environments changi,ng over time? How do families make early care and education decisions? What are the experiences of families and children in Head Start? What are the average school readiness skills and developmental outcomes of the population of Head Start children in fall and spring of the Head Start year? What gains do children make during a year of Head Start? Are children's school readiness skills (average skills or average gains in skills) improving over time? Does classroom quality vary by characteristics of classrooms, teachers, or programs? What characteristics of programs, teachers, or classrooms are associated with aspects of classroom quality? Do the school readiness skills of children in fall and spring and their gains in skills vary by child, family, program, and classroom characteristics? What is the association between observed classroom quality and children's school readiness skills? Between child and family characteristics and children's school readiness skills? The User Guide provides detailed information about the FACES 2019 study design, execution, and data to inform and assist researchers who may be interested in using the data for future analyses. The following items are provided in the User Guide as appendices. Appendix A. Elements of the FACES Design and Key Instruments Used (and Child Outcomes Captured): FACES 1997-FACES 2019 Appendix B. Copyright Permissions Appendix C. Instrument Content Matrices Appendix D. Instruments Appendix E. Spring 2020 Center/Program Codebook Appendix F. Spring 2020 Classroom/Teacher Codebook Appendix G. Fall 2019-Spring 2020 Child Codebook Appendix H. Descriptions of Composite Variables

The 2014 Head Start Family and Child Experiences Survey, or FACES 2014, is the sixth in a series of national studies of Head Start, with earlier studies conducted in 1997, 2000, 2003, 2006, and 2009. FACES 2014 used a new study design that differs from earlier rounds of FACES in several important ways: (1) it included larger program and classroom samples, (2) all data were collected in a single program year, (3) the baseline sample of children included both children enrolled in their first and second year of Head Start, and (4) several special studies were conducted along with the main (Classroom + Child Outcomes Core and Classroom Core) study to collect more detailed information about a given topic, to study new populations of Head Start programs and participants, and to evaluate measures for possible use in future rounds of FACES. For example, the Family Engagement Plus study collected information from parents and staff (teachers and family services staff) on family engagement efforts and service provision in Head Start programs. The FACES 2014 Family Engagement Plus study took place in spring 2015 within the 60 programs that participated in the child-level data collection in the Classroom + Child Outcomes Core study. This Plus study describes family engagement practices in Head Start from the perspectives of parents and Head Start staff. It examines how practices align with the Head Start Parent, Family, and Community Engagement (PFCE) Framework and targeted family outcomes. It also explores how programs engage with community partners to provide comprehensive services to families and how parents and staff characterize their relationships with one another. It includes semi-structured interviews with parents and family services staff (FSS) as well as supplemental content added to the Core parent and teacher surveys. This release includes open-ended qualitative data from the semi-structured interviews included in the Family Engagement Plus study. The primary research questions for the Family Engagement Plus study are as follows: What do family engagement efforts look like in Head Start? How are families engaged in Head Start and in their children's learning and development at home and in the community? What staff are involved in family engagement efforts, and in what ways are they involved in those efforts? How are comprehensive family services provided in Head Start? How do parents and staff characterize their relationships and interactions with one another? How do family engagement efforts and service provisions align with the Head Start Parent, Family, and Community Engagement (PFCE) Framework? The User's Manual provides detailed information about the Family Engagement Plus study design, execution, and data to inform and assist researchers who may be interested in using the data for future analyses or pairing the Family Engagement qualitative data collection sources with other FACES 2014 sources.

The 2014 Head Start Family and Child Experiences Survey, or FACES 2014, is the sixth in a series of national studies of Head Start, with earlier studies conducted in 1997, 2000, 2003, 2006, and 2009. This release includes nationally representative samples of Head Start programs and centers, classrooms, children and their families through spring of 2017. Data from surveys of Head Start program and center directors, classroom teachers, and parents provided descriptive information about program policies and practices, classroom activities, and the background and experiences of Head Start staff and families. Classroom observations were used to assess the quality of Head Start classrooms. Children in the study participated in a direct assessment that provided a picture of their school readiness skills at different time points. FACES 2014 used a new study design that differs from earlier rounds of FACES in several important ways: (1) it included larger program and classroom samples, (2) all data were collected in a single program year, (3) the baseline sample of children included both children enrolled in their first and second year of Head Start, and (4) several special studies were conducted along with the main (Core) study to collect more detailed information about a given topic, to study new populations of Head Start programs and participants, and to evaluate measures for possible use in future rounds of FACES. For example, the Family Engagement Plus study collected information from parents and staff (teachers and family services staff) on family engagement efforts and service provision in Head Start programs. The Office of Head Start, the Administration for Children and Families, other federal agencies, local programs, and the public have depended on FACES for valid and reliable national information on (1) the skills and abilities of Head Start children, (2) how Head Start children's skills and abilities compare with preschool children nationally, (3) Head Start children's readiness for and subsequent performance in kindergarten, and (4) the characteristics of the children's home and classroom environments. The FACES study was designed to enable researchers to answer a wide range of research questions that are crucial for aiding program managers and policymakers. Some of the questions that are central to FACES include: What are the demographic characteristics of the population of children and families served by Head Start? How has the population served by Head Start changed? What are the experiences of families and children in the Head Start program? How have they changed? What are the cognitive and social skills of Head Start children at the beginning and end of the program year? Has Head Start program performance improved over time? What are the qualifications of Head Start teachers in terms of education, experience, and credentials? Are average teacher education levels rising in Head Start? What is the observed quality of Head Start classrooms as early learning environments, including the level and range of teaching and interactions, provisions for learning, emotional and instructional support, and classroom organization? How has quality changed over time? What program- and classroom-level factors are related to observed classroom quality? How is observed quality related to children's outcomes and developmental gains?,tm> The User Guide provides detailed information about the FACES 2014 study design, execution, and data to inform and assist researchers who may be interested in using the data for future analyses. The following items are provided in the User Guide as appendices. Appendix A - Elements Of The FACES Design And Key Measures Used (And Child Outcomes Captured): FACES 1997 - FACES 2014 Appendix B - Copyright Permissions Appendix C - Instrument Content Matrices Appendix D - Instruments Appendix E - Spring 2015 Center/Program Codebook Appendix F - Spring 2015 Classroom/Teacher Codebook Appendix G - 2014-2015 Child Codebook Appendix H - Spring 2015 Family Engagement Family Service Staff Interview Codebook Appendix I - Spring 2015 Family Engagement Parent Interview Codebook Appendix J - Spring 2017 Center/Program Codebook Appendix K - Spring 2017 Classroom/Teacher Codebook Appendix L - Descriptions of Constructed/Derived Variables Appendix M - Synthetic Estimation for Child Growth Across Two Years

The High School Longitudinal Study of 2009 (HSLS:09) is nationally representative, longitudinal study of 9th graders who were followed through their secondary and postsecondary years, with an emphasis on understanding students' trajectories from the beginning of high school into postsecondary education, the workforce, and beyond. What students decide to pursue when, why, and how are crucial questions for HSLS:09. The HSLS:09 focuses on answering the following questions: How do parents, teachers, counselors, and students construct choice sets for students, and how are these related to students' characteristics, attitudes, and behavior? How do students select among secondary school courses, postsecondary institutions, and possible careers? How do parents and students plan financing for postsecondary experiences? What sources inform these plans? What factors influence students' decisions about taking STEM courses and following through with STEM college majors? Why are some students underrepresented in STEM courses and college majors? How students' plans vary over the course of high school and how decisions in 9th grade impact students' high school trajectories. When students are followed up in the spring of 11th grade and later, their planning and decision-making in 9th grade may be linked to subsequent behavior. This data collection also provides data for some arts-related topics, including the following: student participation in outside of schools arts activities; credit hours of arts classes taken; GPA from arts classes; and parent-led arts experiences. For the public-use file, a total of 23,503 students responded from over 900 high schools both public and private.

The Impacts and Implementation of the i3-Funded Scale-Up of Success for All study examined the implementation and impacts of a whole-school reform model, Success for All (SFA), which seeks to increase reading proficiency among students in elementary schools serving low-income children, as this model was scaled up under an Investing in Innovation (i3) grant from the United States Department of Education. The impact evaluation used a cluster random assignment design in which 37 schools in five school districts were selected at random either to implement SFA (the program group schools) or to put in place their business-as-usual reading program (the control group schools). This collection contains Parts 1 to 7 for public use; and Part 8 for restricted use only. In Part 1: Primary Student Sample data, children who began kindergarten in sampled schools and remained in them through second grade were assessed using standardized assessments of phonics skills, reading fluency, and comprehension. In Part 2: Auxiliary Sample, additional analyses examined third-year impacts on reading skills for all second graders, whether or not they remained continuously enrolled in the study schools, and for students in grades 3 through 5. The analysis also examined impacts for subgroups defined by ethnicity, early literacy skills measured upon entry into kindergarten, and other variables. Part 3: School Achievement Snapshot Data contain implementation data for analysis using an instrument created by SFA's developers that measures the extent to which program elements were put in place at each program group at the end of each year. This instrument was utilized to assess fidelity to the program model. The implementation analysis was also informed by principal (Part 5: Principal Survey) and teacher surveys (Part 4: Teacher Survey) in all schools, as well by logs (Part 6: Teacher Log) that asked teachers to document their instructional practices in early reading classes. These data, collected in all three study years, make it possible to measure implementation over the study period and to compare program group schools and control group schools on a variety of dimensions. Part 7: Scale-Up Sample Data provided data on the schools that adopted SFA (and those which were approached, but did not adopt), and schools that adopted before the Investing in Innovations grant. Part 8 is the restricted version of Part 7, which retains geographic location variables.

The Information on Artists series, conducted by the Research Center for Arts and Culture at Columbia University, studied American artists' work-related human and social service needs in 1989, 1997, 2004, 2007, 2008, 2011. The initial study (1989) included artists from ten cities: Boston, Cape Cod, Chicago, Dallas, Los Angeles, Minneapolis/St. Paul, New York, Philadelphia, San Francisco and western Massachusetts. The 1997 wave was conducted in four of the original cities: Los Angeles, Minneapolis/St. Paul, New York, and San Francisco. The 2004 wave consisted only of artists in the San Francisco Bay area and included a longitudinal component. The 2007 wave provides the first needs assessment of aging artists in the New York Metro Area. The mailed surveys asked questions about artists' work-related, human and social service needs, including health coverage and insurance, life insurance, retirement plans, credit, live/work space, legal and financial service expertise/needs. Like its predecessor Information on Artists III, Information on Artists IV (2011 waves): Still Kicking tries to understand how artists are supported and integrated within their communities, and how their network structures change over time and to understand how performing artists mature into old age-artistically, emotionally, financially and chronologically. The number of respondents across the data files ranges from 56 to 2,101.

The Jewish School Study was undertaken to determine the advantages and disadvantages of different forms of Jewish education, how Jewish day schools are formed and organized, how Jewish schools contribute to the maintenance of continuity of a 400-year tradition, how adolescent Jews develop their identity, and what role religious education plays in this development. Questions also asked how Jewish adolescents and their parents participate in Jewish life, express their feelings about being Jewish, the role of spirituality in their lives, how they learn about Jewish life, and their relationship/ties with Israel and the Jewish people. Part 1, the Parent Survey, asked parents of students in Jewish schools about the financial costs of religious education, their religious background, Jewish religious practices of their household, as well as their own religious beliefs and spirituality. The survey also sought answers to questions on the parents' reasons for their choice of Jewish school, how involved and in what ways they were involved in their child's school and education, their involvement in the Jewish community, their level of knowledge on various subjects related to Judaism, and their opinions on their own parenting. Other information collected included marital status, income, family status, family origins, education, and employment. Part 2, the Student Survey, asked students about their religious background, the religious practices and experiences in their household, and their own Jewish practices. Students were then asked about how they spent their free time on Saturdays and weekdays, how they and their parents felt about being Jewish, and what types of rules their parents had for them. Additionally, students were queried about their values, friends, and future plans; knowledge of various subjects relating to Judaism; and their opinions of their school, teachers, and their own academic performance. Background information collected included gender, grade in school, name and types of schools attended, household composition, language spoken in the home, and parents' education and employment. Part 3, the Teacher Survey, asked teachers about the settings they worked in and the salary and benefits of those positions. Respondents also were asked about the classes they taught, the use of various teaching methods and media, and their roles and responsibilities. The survey also asked the teachers about their training and professional development, their perceptions and attitudes about their school, parental involvement, resources and facilities, and school goals. Additionally, teachers were asked about their religious background, Jewish religious practices of their own households, and their personal religious beliefs and spirituality. Background information collected included type of postsecondary education, gender, age, place of birth, marital status, income, and future career plans.

In 2000, the Kentucky General Assembly passed historic early childhood legislation (Kentucky's KIDS [Kentucky Invests in Developing Success] NOW Initiative) of which a component included the development of a seamless professional development system. The professional development system includes core content, articulation, credentials, scholarships and a training framework. This comprehensive professional development system, along with other initiative components in assuring maternal and child health, supporting families, enhancing early care and education, and establishing a support structure, have moved the field of early childhood care and education forward in the state and improved child and family outcomes. This study was designed to build on the KIDS NOW Initiative by conducting research investigating the degree to which a statewide unified professional development system impacted the educational level of early care and education providers and subsequent classroom quality. It focused on three major predictors of professional development outcomes: Individual teacher characteristics, including learning readiness, education (level and type), training experience, attitudes towards training, personality (conscientiousness, self-efficacy), job satisfaction (perceptions of support) Characteristics of the program administrator, including administrator education and administrator support of professional development Characteristics of the teacher's work setting, including program administration, and policies and procedures, and classroom setting (Child Care, Head Start, or Public Preschool) The impact of these three predictors was measured on two major outcomes: (a) professional development outcomes, as measured by job status, learning and transfer of learning, and (b) organizational outcomes, as measured by program quality, child outcomes and staff retention. The research questions guiding this research were focused on determining the degree to which (1) a unified professional development framework initiated at the state level results in positive child outcomes, and (2) the educational level of early care and education providers enhances the quality of classroom environments. Specifically: What components of a professional development framework are more effective in encouraging and supporting individuals to remain in early care and education settings? What components of a professional development framework are more effective in supporting early care and education professionals in enhancing classroom quality and child outcomes? Are there specific factors that impact early care and education professionals' ability to participate in professional development activities at various levels? Does the level and intensity of professional development experiences impact classroom quality and child outcomes? What personnel factors have the highest impact on quality classroom environments and child outcomes? What is the interaction between the personnel, professional development, and program variables on classroom quality and child outcomes?

The Longitudinal Study of American Youth (LSAY) is a project that was funded by the National Science Foundation in 1985 and was designed to examine the development of: (1) student attitudes toward and achievement in science, (2) student attitudes toward and achievement in mathematics, and (3) student interest in and plans for a career in science, mathematics, or engineering, during middle school, high school, and the first four years post-high school. The relative influence parents, home, teachers, school, peers, media, and selected informal learning experiences had on these developmental patterns was considered as well. The older LSAY cohort, Cohort One, consisted of a national sample of 2,829 tenth-grade students in public high schools throughout the United States. These students were followed for an initial period of seven years, ending four years after high school in 1994. Cohort Two, consisted of a national sample of 3,116 seventh-grade students in public schools that served as feeder schools to the same high schools in which the older cohort was enrolled. These students were followed for an initial period of seven years, concluding with a telephone interview approximately one year after the end of high school in 1994. Beginning in the fall of 1987, the LSAY collected a wide array of information including: (1) a science achievement test and a mathematics achievement test each fall, (2) an attitudinal and experience questionnaire at the beginning and end of each school year, (3) reports about education and experience from all science and math teachers in each school, (4) reports on classroom practice by each science and math teacher serving a LSAY student, (5) an annual 25-minute telephone interview with one parent of each student, and (6) extensive school-level information from the principal of each study school. In 2006, the NSF funded a proposal to re-contact the original LSAY students (then in their mid-30's) to resume data collection to determine their educational and occupational outcomes. Through an extensive tracking activity which involved: (1) online tracking, (2) newsletter mailing, (3) calls to parents and other relatives, (4) use of alternative online search methods, and (5) questionnaire mailing, more than 95 percent of the original sample of 5,945 LSAY students were located or accounted for. In addition to re-contacting the students, the proposal defined a new eligible sample of approximately 5,000 students and these young adults were asked to complete a survey in 2007. A second survey was conducted in the fall of 2008 that sought to gather updated information about occupational and education outcomes and to measure the civic scientific literacy of these young adults, in which to date more than 3,200 participants have responded. A third survey was conducted in the fall of 2009 that sought to gather updated information about occupational and education outcomes and to measure the participants' use of selected informal science education resources, in which to date more than 3,200 participants have responded. A fourth survey was conducted in the fall of 2010 that sought to gather updated information about occupational and education outcomes, as well as provided questions about the participants' interactions with their children, in which to date more than 3,200 participants have responded. Finally, a fifth survey was conducted in the fall of 2011 that sought to gather updated information about e,ducation outcomes and included an expanded occupation battery for all participants, as well as an expanded spousal information battery for all participants. The 2011 questionnaire also included items about the 2011 Fukushima incident in Japan along with attitudinal items about nuclear power and global climate change. To date approximately 3,200 participants responded to the 2011 survey. There were no surveys conducted in 2012 or 2013. Beginning in 2014 the LSAY was funded by the National Institute on Aging for five years. This data release adds the 2017 data to the previous data release that included data through 2016. The public release data files include information collected from the national probability sample students, their parents, and the science and mathematics teachers in the students' schools. The data covers the initial seven years, beginning in the fall of 1987, as well as the data collected in the 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017 questionnaires. Part 1: LSAY Merged Cohort (Base File) contains student and parent data from both cohorts of the LSAY from 1987-1994 and student follow-up data from 2007-2011 and 2014-2017. Additionally, Parts 2 - 5 contain information gathered from two teacher background questionnaires and two principal questionnaires from 1987-1994.

The Professional Development Study (PDS) is a randomized controlled evaluation of two forms of professional development delivered to over 490 early childhood education teachers: (1) coursework on effective instructional interactions (as defined by the Classroom Assessment Scoring System [CLASS], an observational measure with established links to child outcomes) and (2) video-based consultation support through MyTeachingPartner (MTP). These professional development supports aim to improve teachers' implementation of language/literacy activities and interactions with children, as well as promote gains in children's social and academic development. The questionnaires and measures used to gather the study data were initially compiled into 76 Raw-level files. The Raw-level data were in turn used by the research team at NCRECE to create 10 comprehensive Analysis-level files in order to avoid any inaccuracies that might result from incorrectly merging the Raw files. The Analysis-level files are organized by participant and phase of study. Whenever possible, Analysis files should be utilized instead of merging individual Raw files. Additional information about this study can be found at the NCRECE web site.

The National Center for Teacher Effectiveness Main Study (NCTE) encompasses three years of data collection and observations of math instruction in approximately 50 schools and 300 classrooms. Data were collected from classroom observations, student assessments, and teacher surveys. Teacher background information includes number of years of experience, education, race, and gender. Student respondent demographic and household information includes race, gender, household makeup, free and reduced lunch status, English proficiency, number of books in the household, and number of rooms in the home.

This study aimed to validate an approach to implementing Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS), a school-climate improvement program, in a partnering school district in an attempt to address pressing issues impacting students' success. The study was a collaboration between the Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE), the partnering school district, and several additional partners, who collaboratively designed and supported the PBIS implementation approach funded from National Institute of Justice (NIJ) and supplemental funds from the participating school district. The impacts of trauma training for school officers were assessed via an PBIS of all eligible district K-8 schools, including schools that did and did not use school-wide PBIS. The random controlled trial (RCT) used a blocked design to assign schools to treatment and control conditions within PBIS status (i.e., PBIS school, non-PBIS school). Impacts of the implementation model were assessed via a cluster randomized experiment. To select schools to receive the expanded supports being provided through this project, the research team collaborated with the partnering school district's school climate administrators and project partners who had been supporting PBIS implementation in the district for several years prior to the start of the project. Criteria were established to determine eligibility for the implementation model, including that eligible schools must have: 1) strong PBIS implementation at Tier 1, 2) attempted implementing some form of Tier 2 supports, and 3) leadership buy-in. Applying these criteria, nine potential schools were identified as eligible. From this list, four schools were randomly selected to receive the implementation model and the remaining five schools served as Comparison schools and conducted business-as-usual PBIS.

This study represents one of the first randomized controlled trials of the impacts of restorative practices on classroom and school climate and suspension rates. The research team collected extensive data about implementation to help examine how it is related to effects and to develop operational guidance for school district leaders. The studied schools, all part of the Pittsburgh Public Schools district, implemented restorative practices for two school years (2015-16 and 2016-17) under the leadership of the International Institute for Restorative Practices.

The Quality Interventions for Early Care and Education Partnership for Inclusion (QUINCE-PFI) study is one half of a multistate study of two assessment based, individualized on-site consultation models. The Partnerships for Inclusion (PFI) consultation model, was implemented in California, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, and North Carolina and included consultations of child care provider training for providers and teachers in both centers and homes, with a special emphasis on providers in family child care homes, including license-exempt care. The goal of this research was to determine the conditions under which a very specific assessment based, on-site consultation model of child care provider training enhances the quality of the family home or child care classroom and results in positive child change. The PFI consists of two main components, the assessment tools used to index quality -- The Infant/Toddler Environment Rating Scale-Revised, (ITERS), 2003, The Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale--Revised, (ECERS ), 1998, and Family Day Care Rating Scale (FDCRS), 1989, measures developed by Harms, Clifford and Cryer, and the theory-based, collaborative, problem-solving model of consultation developed by Pat Wesley. The model builds on the literature that suggests greater change is possible when individuals are involved in assessing their own needs, receive individualized support over an extended period of time, and have opportunities to apply new knowledge and skills in their own work setting. The public release of the data files includes only datasets containing summary variables from direct interviews and scale scores. The restricted release contains all data available for release including all direct interview variables, roster information and demographic variables.

These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they were received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except for the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompanying readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collection and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed. This study sought to examine any major changes in schools in the past two years as an evaluation of the Safe and Civil Schools Initiative. Students, faculty, and administrators were asked questions on topics including school safety, climate, and the discipline process. This collection includes 6 SAS data files: "psja_schools.sas7bdat" with 66 variables and 15 cases, "psja_schools_v01.sas7bdat" with 104 variables and 15 cases, "psja_staff.sas7bdat" with 39 variables and 2,921 cases, "psja_staff_v01.sas7bdat" with 202 variables and 2,398 cases, "psja_students.sas7bdat" with 97 variables and 4,382 cases, and "psja_students_v01.sas7bdat" with 332 variables and 4,267 cases. Additionally, the collection includes 1 SAS formats catalog "formats.sas7bcat", and 10 SAS syntax files.

The Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) is a system of related questionnaires that provide descriptive data on the context of elementary and secondary education and provide policymakers a variety of statistics on the condition of education in the United States. The SASS system covers a wide range of topics from teacher demand, teacher and principal characteristics, general conditions in schools, principals' and teachers' perceptions of school climate and problems in their schools, teacher compensation, district hiring and retention practices, to basic characteristics of the student population. Questionnaires, methodology information and summary tables can be downloaded directly from the SASS website. Of cultural interest are the data on library and media centers which offer insights into subjects such as library staffing, library collections, and library expenditures. These data can be accessed through the National Center for Education Statistics DataLab. Policymakers involved in arts and culture would find tables from the SASS/TFS Table Library important to their work, including the following: Number and percentage of public school teachers whose main assignment is in arts and music, by main teaching assignment and community type: 2011-12 Number of public schools that reported having library media centers, by state: 2011-12 Average number of holdings, additions, and expenditures in library media centers during 2010-11 for various kinds of materials, by state: 2011-12 Average hours public and private third grade students spent on art and music during a typical full week of school, by selected school characteristics: 2007-08

The State of the First Amendment survey, conducted annually (since 1997, except for 1998) examines public attitudes toward freedom of speech, press, religion, and the rights of assembly and petition. Core questions, asked each year, include awareness of First Amendment freedoms, overall assessments of whether there is too much or too little freedom of speech, press, and religion in the United States, levels of tolerance for various types of public expression (such as flag-burning and singing songs with potentially offensive lyrics), levels of tolerance for various journalistic behaviors, attitudes toward prayer in schools, and level of support for amending the Constitution to prohibit flag-burning or defacement. There were additional (non-core) questions asked for each year the survey was conducted. Each year, the additional questions asked about the following topics: 1997: how important various Constitutional rights are to people, whether people engaged in various kinds of public or political behaviors during the past year, and how free people feel to speak their minds in various settings 1999: attitudes toward alcohol and tobacco advertisements, levels of tolerance for sexually explicit content in various media, and attitudes toward television and Internet content ratings 2000: attitudes toward the role of government in political campaigns, the role of religion and the use of religious materials in classrooms, and attitudes toward government regulation of content on the Internet 2001: attitudes toward the creation of the federal Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives and attitudes toward the regulation of political campaign contributions 2002: attitudes toward media coverage of the "war on terrorism," whether the government has the right to monitor the activities of religious groups even if it means infringing upon religious freedoms, and levels of support for public access to various types of local government records 2003: attitudes toward corporate ownership of news organizations, media coverage of the Iraq War and "the war on terrorism," whether the government has the right to monitor the activities of religious groups even if it means infringing upon religious freedoms, and whether controversial political remarks by entertainers affect the likelihood of attending performances or purchasing products featuring such entertainers 2004: the effort to amend the Constitution to ban flag-burning, proposals to expand regulation of so-called indecent material in the media, attempts by government officials and private advocates to lower the "wall of separation between church and state," and scandals involving made-up stories and facts at major news organizations 2005: attitudes toward religious freedom in the workplace, freedom of expression in the public schools, the display of the Ten Commandments in public buildings, the confidentiality of library records, and government's ability to restrict various types of content in public broadcasts 2006: whether the press should be allowed to publish works that criticize the actions of the government during wartime and whether political candidates should be allowed to criticize the actions of the government while campaigning during wartime For each survey year, computer-aided telephone interviews (CATI) were conducted, and ,the number of respondents across the data files ranges from 1,000 to 1,025.

This study includes data collected between 1970-1974 by 21 national centers of the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), from a total of approximately 250,000 students, 50,000 teachers, and 10,000 schools in 19 different countries. Students were tested on their achievement in six subject areas: science, reading comprehension, literature, civic education, and French and English as foreign languages. Between eight and 19 countries participated in each survey by testing students at one or more of the following levels: 10-year-olds (Population I), 14-year-olds (Population II), and students in the last year of pre-university schooling or programs of equivalent length (Population IV). The countries included were Australia, Belgium, Chile, Finland, France, West Germany, Great Britain, Hungary, India, Iran, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Romania, Sweden, Thailand, and the United States. In addition to student achievement data, each survey solicited information on the students' home and socioeconomic backgrounds, interests, and attitudes. Information was also gathered on characteristics of the teachers and participating schools. In terms of timing, the survey was broken down in the following stages: (1) Stage 1 (1966-1970), construction and pretesting of instruments. (2) Stage 2 (1970-1973), fieldwork and analysis for science, reading comprehension, and literature. (3) Stage 3 (1971-1974), fieldwork and analysis for civic education, English as a foreign language, and French as a foreign language. (4) Data bank (1973-1975), rebuilding of files and preparation of documentation for archiving and distribution.

The Study of Coaching Practices in Early Care and Education Settings (SCOPE), funded by the Administration for Children and Families (ACF), aimed to examine the range of coaching options utilized in the early care and education (ECE) field. Data collection occurred in two phases, with initial data collection occurring in 2019 and follow-up data collection occurring in 2021 (referred to as SCOPE 2019 and SCOPE 2021, respectively). SCOPE 2019 examined how the prevalence, implementation, combination, and tailoring of coaching features vary across center-based classrooms and family child care (FCC) homes serving preschool-age children. In addition, the study explored programmatic and systems-level factors related to the implementation of coaching. SCOPE 2021 aimed to understand the practice and processes of coaching--and professional development more broadly--in supporting ECE settings throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, and how those practices and processes have been adapted or changed in the context of the pandemic. The SCOPE 2021 surveys expanded the focus on remote versus in-person coaching strategies. The SCOPE project was a mixed-methods study. SCOPE was conducted in seven states, and used a purposive sampling approach. The study included centers and FCCs that served preschool-age children from families with a low income. It primarily included settings funded through a Head Start grant or serving children with Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) subsidies, though settings also used other forms of funding. From February through July 2019, the project implemented web-based surveys with center directors, center teachers, FCC providers, and coaches. From July to October 2021, the study implemented follow-up web-based surveys with center directors, FCC providers and coaches who responded to the survey in 2019, and additionally conducted in-depth qualitative interviews with a subset of these respondents.

The Study of Jazz Artists 2001 collected data on the working and living situations of jazz musicians in four cities -- New York, San Francisco, New Orleans, and Detroit. In each city, two surveys were conducted: A conventional random sample of musicians belonging to the American Federation of Musicians and a "respondent-driven sample" of jazz musicians. The American Federation of Musicians Survey collected data from 1,963 American Federation of Musicians members. Interviews were conducted by phone between March 13 and May 23, 2001, using a computer-assisted telephone interviewing system. For the Respondent-Driven Sample Survey, in-person interviews were completed with a total of 733 jazz musicians during the spring and summer of 2001.

For Waves 1 and 2 (2016-2017), the two-year longitudinal research examined the prevalence of seven different types of teacher victimization, its negative consequences among victimized teachers, and predictors of aggression directed against teachers. The research, using a stratified multistage cluster sampling design, surveyed 1,628 middle and high school teachers in 14 school districts, located in a large metropolitan area in the southwest region of the United States. Two waves of the longitudinal research collected 1) teachers' socio-demographic factors, 2) teacher classroom management styles, and 3) school climate factors which are related to teacher victimization. Also, the data contained characteristics of victimization, school responses to teacher victimization, and negative consequences of teacher victimization. Waves 3 and 4 (2018-2019) explored the trends and patterns of different types of teacher victimization focusing on victimizations via verbal abuse and non-physical contact aggression. They also examined the percentage of teachers reporting victimizations to school administrators, school responses to teacher victimization, and satisfaction with school handling of victimization incidents. Finally, Waves 3 and 4 investigated the effect of procedural justice on 1) victimized teachers' satisfaction with school responses, 2) physical distress, and 3) emotional distress. Users should refer to the data collection notes field below for additional information about study citation.

Many schools have implemented programs to address bullying, such as the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program (OBPP), or broader school behavioral issues, such as School-wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (SWPBIS), but there have been calls to integrate school interventions in order to address the limits of each "stand alone" program. The purpose of this project was to develop an intervention combining OBPP and SWPBIS strategies into one integrated program, evaluate its effectiveness using a randomized controlled trial (RCT), analyze the program's cost effectiveness, and examine the use of school-based mental health services in elementary, middle, and high school settings. Implications for policy and strategy are also discussed. School-level data were presented including disciplinary incidents, student and teacher attendance, program costs, and the presence of mental health services. Students and teachers within intervention and control conditions were surveyed about their perceptions of bullying, school safety, and school climate. Teachers in intervention schools were asked about program satisfaction, self-efficacy, and fidelity. Students were asked numerous questions pertaining to physical and mental health, bullying perpetration and victimization, and substance abuse. Teachers and students were asked their grade, gender, and race.

The purpose of this project was to better understand how to improve children's transitions from Head Start programs to elementary schools. Central to this project was a systems approach that recognizes that effective transitions require intentional engagement from both the sending programs (Head Start) and the receiving programs (elementary schools). This approach also recognized that transition strategies and practices must be implemented at multiple levels - among classroom teachers in Head Start and kindergarten, families, elementary school principals and Head Start directors, Head Start grantees and school districts, and state and federal agencies. Specifically, the project aimed to explore the definition of "successful transitions" by addressing the following research questions: What strategies and practices are Head Start programs implementing to support children as they transition from Head Start to kindergarten? What is the content, quality, and quantity of these strategies and practices? How are they experienced by children, families, teachers, and other direct service providers? What characterizes relationships/partnerships among Head Start programs, elementary schools, and other community partners that support children's successful transitions from Head Start to kindergarten? What are the specific facilitators of, and barriers to, successful transitions? What are the key perceived short- and long-term outcomes of transition strategies and practices for children, families, Head Start teachers, and kindergarten teachers? What are the key contextual factors and mechanisms that result in these key perceived outcomes? This project included several key tasks, including a review of the knowledge base, the development of a theory of change, a scan of existing measures and data sources to determine alignment with the theory of change, the development of new measures based on gaps identified in the measures scan, and the implementation of a comparative multi-case study.