Search results

Tools for Life: Relationship-Building Solutions (TFL) is a program designed to improve school climate and safety through the proactive development of elementary and middle school students' interpersonal skills (relationship-building and communication) and intrapersonal skills (self-regulation and resiliency). In the 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 school years, the Jackson (Mississippi) Public School District (JPSD) implemented TFL in grades 1 through 8. RAND researchers conducted a randomized controlled trial to determine whether TFL, integrated into existing school practices, positively affected school climate and safety in the district.

This project described the implementation of TFL in JPSD, calculated its costs, and evaluated the program's effectiveness. TFL was designed to improve whole-school change in relationships among staff and students, but the project researchers found that implementation of TFL in JPSD schools was generally shallow, and the program was rarely, if at all, implemented across a whole school as it was designed. TFL had little impact: After one year of implementation, there were no practically or statistically significant differences between schools that implemented TFL and those that did not in measures of students' social and emotional, school climate, behavioral, or achievement outcomes. In addition to the uneven implementation of the program, methodological limitations of the study and contextual factors in JPSD may have contributed to these finding.

The Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 1998-1999 (ECLS-K) focuses on children's early school experiences beginning with kindergarten through fifth grade. It is a nationally representative sample that collects information from children, their families, their teachers, and their schools. ECLS-K provides data about the effects of a wide range of family, school, community, and individual variables on children's cognitive, social, emotional, and physical development, their early learning and early performance in school, as well as their home environment, home educational practices, school environment, classroom environment, classroom curriculum, and teacher qualifications.

With a few exceptions, the fifth grade data file contains all data collected from parents, children, teachers, or schools in the base year (fall and spring), first grade (fall and spring), third grade (spring), and fifth grade (spring) data collections. To streamline the file, however, the data from the household rosters that listed all household members, their relationship to the sampled child, and selected other characteristics are not included in the file. The composite variables describing critical household roster-based information, such as the children's family structure and selected characteristics of the family members, have been retained on the file.

Specific subjects covered by the variables in this data file include parent/child gender, parent/child race, family background, socioeconomic status, household income, parents' education level, and parents' employment and marital status. Other variables include type of childcare and childcare arrangements, the child's math, science, and reading scores, the child's learning problems and autism, as well as the child's diet issues, food security, and school food service. Variables about teachers include age, race, background, qualifications, job satisfaction, their level of impact on curriculum and policy, and time spent on classroom activities and specific subjects. Other variables include diversity of classroom students, parent-teacher discussions, family participation in school events and fundraising, whether the child's school has bars on the windows and doors, fire alarms, sprinklers, and fire extinguishers, the presence of school graffiti, as well as bus/transportation issues.

The Early Childhood Longitudinal Study Kindergarten Class of 1998-1999, Kindergarten-Eighth Grade Full Sample includes the kindergarten, first, third, fifth, and eighth grade data collections for the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 1998-1999 (ECLS-K). Unlike the public-use longitudinal files released in previous rounds, this file contains all data for all ECLS-K sample cases that have been publicly released in any of the rounds. Thus, it can be used for within-year (cross-sectional) analyses of any round of data collection and cross-year (longitudinal) analyses of combinations of rounds. It focuses on children's early school experiences beginning with kindergarten through eighth grade. It is a nationally representative sample that collects information from children, their families, their teachers, and their schools. ECLS-K provides data about the effects of a wide range of family, school, community, and individual variables on children's cognitive, social, emotional, and physical development, their early learning and early performance in school, as well as their home environment, home educational practices, school environment, classroom environment, classroom curriculum, and teacher qualifications. The list below summarizes each wave of this study.

• 1998-1999 (the Kindergarten year-Rounds 1 and 2): The ECLS-K child assessments, parent interviews, and teacher questionnaires were conducted in the fall. Children, parents, and teachers participated again in the spring, along with school administrators.

• 1999-2000 (the First grade year-Rounds 3 and 4): The ECLS-K conducted child assessments and parent interviews for a 30 percent sub-sample in the fall. The full sample of children, parents, teachers, and school administrators participated in the spring.

• 2002 (the Third grade year-Round 5): The ECLS-K conducted child assessments and parent interviews in the spring. Teachers and school administrators completed questionnaires.

• 2004 (the Fifth grade year-Round 6): The ECLS-K conducted child assessments and parent interviews in the spring. Teachers and school administrators completed questionnaires.

• 2007 (the Eighth grade year-Round 7): The ECLS-K followed the children into middle school. Information was collected from the children, their parents, teachers, and school administrators.

For more detailed information about this data collection, please refer to the user guide.

The ELMC Study collected data to describe the objectives, activities, approaches, strategies, and other aspects of the Early Learning Mentor Coach (ELMC) initiative from the perspectives of Head Start grantees, coaches, and staff. In October 2010, the funds to support the ELMC initiative were distributed to 130 Head Start grantees in 42 states and the District of Columbia for a seventeen month period. Grantees used the funds to hire coaches to provide on-the-job guidance, training, mentoring and technical assistance to Head Start staff. The grant recipients reflected the diversity of Head Start programs, including Migrant and Seasonal Head Start and American Indian and Alaskan Native Head Start grantees. Data was collected using a mixed-methods design (qualitative and quantitative) and the following data collection instruments: a grantee census survey; a coach census survey; coach telephone interviews; and staff telephone interviews with staff who received coaching. At this time, only the quantitative data are available via ICPSR.

The Eurobarometer series is a unique cross-national and cross-temporal survey program conducted on behalf of the European Commission. These surveys regularly monitor public opinion in the European Union (EU) member countries and consist of standard modules and special topic modules. The standard modules address attitudes towards European unification, institutions and policies, measurements for general socio-political orientations, as well as respondent and household demographics. The special topic modules address such topics as agriculture, education, natural environment and resources, public health, public safety and crime, and science and technology.

Eurobarometer 81.3 covered the following special topics: (1) Attitudes of European Citizens Towards the Environment and (2) Skills and Qualifications in the EU. Respondents' opinions were collected regarding their concern about environmental issues such as protection of natural resources, biodiversity, and pollution; their level of knowledge of these issues; and if they trusted various agencies such as the local government, trade unions, or consumer associations to provide reliable information about environmental issues. Respondents were also questioned about how environmental, social, and economic factors affected their quality of life, which group or groups were most responsible for addressing environmental issues, and which solutions they felt would have the strongest impact. Additional questions were asked regarding which skills were most important to achieve success in the workforce, where such skills could best be obtained, and the ease of accessing information on how to pursue educational opportunities to acquire these skills. Respondents were also asked about their socioeconomic position in society, whether their voice was being heard in the electoral system, and their opinions on if their home country and the European Union were generally going in the right or wrong direction.

Demographic and other background information collected includes age, gender, nationality, marital status, occupation, age when stopped full-time education, household composition, difficulties in paying bills, self-assessed level in society, self-assessed social class, and Internet use. In addition, country-specific data includes type and size of locality, region of residence, and language of interview (select countries).

Across the United States (U.S.), school districts have grappled with how to create safe community- and achievement-oriented schools and how to ensure the necessary discipline is applied transparently, fairly, and without bias. Two programs that many schools have turned to in order to achieve these goals are Schoolwide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) and Restorative Justice (RJ). PBIS is an evidence-driven schoolwide behavioral management approach that aims to outline clear expectations for students and to cultivate shared norms and practices across classrooms and school spaces. PBIS has become a popular approach in schools and districts: as of 2020; over 19,000 schools in the U.S. have implemented PBIS.

A second program, Restorative Justice (RJ), has grown in popularity in recent years. RJ typically focuses on restorative relationship building between affected parties, peaceful reconciliation, and non-punitive approaches to rectifying harm, using a structured circle discussion format. RJ schools use both community circles, designed to build a safe space for students and staff to share and listen to each other, and restorative circles, designed to share perspectives on and redress a behavioral issue.

Working with a large school district in a mid-Atlantic state, researchers set out to test whether these two programs substitute for or complement each other. In partnership with the school district researchers conducted two separate school-level randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The first RCT (RCT 1) sought to uncover the marginal impact of RJ by adding the program to a set of randomly selected schools that were already implementing PBIS. The second RCT (RCT 2) was designed to discover the impact of introducing both programs together into schools that had neither program at baseline. Researchers conducted student and staff surveys to collect measures of school climate, teacher logs to record program implementation, and researchers also received administrative data from the district on student test scores, teacher and student absences, student disciplinary infractions, and school costs.

There is growing evidence of the effectiveness of each of these programs in isolation. A recent meta-analysis of 32 experimental and quasi-experimental impact studies of PBIS found that PBIS reduced disciplinary exclusions and problem behavior and increased academic achievement. The findings were statistically significant and showed small to medium effect sizes. Individual studies have found that PBIS reduces the use of office disciplinary referrals and other exclusionary disciplinary measures (including the use of in-school and out-of-school suspensions), while improving student behavior and attitudes across school levels. Individual studies show variable--some statistically significant and some null--impacts on academic outcomes.

The empirical evidence on the effect of RJ in U.S. schools is more limited, with little rigorous casual evidence published to date. Based on patterns across rigorous and non-rigorous research, restorative justice is associated with decreases in suspension rates and disciplinary disparities, improved student behavior, and improved school climate and relationships.

Since 2008, the Youth Restoration Project (YRP) and the Central Falls School District (CFSD) in Rhode Island have collaborated to implement a multi-level restorative justice intervention focused on building partnerships among police, schools, social services, families, and communities through training and dialogue. Restorative justice (RJ) encompasses a broad framework of practices aimed at repairing harm and achieving accountability rather than imposing punishment. In criminal justice contexts, RJ models include victim-offender mediation, peer courts, and RJ conferences. The current project undertaken by the Urban Institute focused on evaluating the impact of restorative justice conferences conducted by the YRP in partnership with Family Services of Rhode Island. A restorative justice conference (RJC) is a highly structured, facilitated meeting that allows affected parties (e.g., offending student, victim, teacher) and their allies (e.g., parents/guardians, peers) to arrive at the best possible solution for all parties following a negative event or behavior. Three different types of student misbehavior were considered for referral to restorative conferencing as an alternative to more formal processes: (1) arrestable offenses (with or without victims), (2) chronic unexcused absenteeism (truancy), or (3) chronic disruptive behavior.

The Urban Institute began implementing a conference observation pilot in a CFSD middle school and high school in fall 2014; the 2015-2016 school year was the first full year of implementation. Starting in 2016-2017, a middle school and high school in Providence also participated; conference observations were also conducted in a charter high school in the area. At these 5 schools between 2015-2016 and 2017-2018, 786 cases were referred for RJ conferencing; conferences were held in about half of these cases (379). A total of 105 conferences were observed by trained field staff. Post-conference interviews were conducted in the months following RJCs and allowed adult conference participants to share feedback regarding their experience and satisfaction with the conference process. Additionally, an outcome evaluation was conducted using student administrative data to assess the impact of conferences on student behavior. Finally, teacher surveys and focus groups were conducted in 4 participating schools to assess teacher perceptions of overall school climate as well as attitudes toward restorative practices and RJCs.

This collection includes data from restorative justice conference observation (DS1) and teacher surveys (DS2). Administrative data from the outcome evaluation and qualitative data from post-conference interviews and teacher focus groups were not deposited and are not included in the ICPSR release.

The International Civic and Citizenship Education Study, 2016 (ICCS) is an international assessment of the ways in which young people are prepared to undertake their roles as citizens. It investigated student knowledge and understanding of civics and citizenship as well as students' perceptions, attitudes, and activities related to civics and citizenship. It also examined differences among countries in these outcomes and the relationship of these outcomes to students' individual characteristics and family backgrounds, to teaching practices, and to school and broader community contexts.

Like its predecessor IEA Civic Education Study, 1999 (CIVED), ICCS 2016 included a student test of civic knowledge and understanding, as well as questionnaires for students, teachers, and school principals. The comprehensive core assessment was complemented by regional modules for Europe and Latin America, designed to flexibly recognize regional interests and investigate related aspects of civic and citizenship education. The survey data were supplemented by information about the national contexts for civic and citizenship education gathered by the national research centers of the participating countries.

Data were collected in 2015-2016 under the auspices of the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) headquartered in Amsterdam. ICCS collected data from more than 94,000 eighth grade (or equivalent) students in about 3,800 schools from 24 countries. These student data were augmented with data from more than 37,000 teachers in those schools and further contextual data collected from school principals and national research centers.

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:

1. Individual teacher characteristics, including learning readiness, education (level and type), training experience, attitudes towards training, personality (conscientiousness, self-efficacy), job satisfaction (perceptions of support)
2. Characteristics of the program administrator, including administrator education and administrator support of professional development
3. 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 Kidsteps II Project tested the efficacy of the Second Step Early Learning (SSEL) curriculum in improving children's social-emotional skills (SE), executive functioning (EF), and school readiness skills in preschool relative to usual curricular frameworks, and the predictive power of the intervention on kindergarten readiness and kindergarten success. Kidsteps II, a 4-year study funded by the U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, included 67 classrooms randomly assigned to one of two, two-year cohorts. In each cohort, half of the classrooms were randomly assigned to receive the SSEL curriculum (intervention condition), and half continued usual practices (control/comparison condition). Teachers in intervention classrooms were provided with training and implementation support for two years. Teachers in both conditions completed social skills rating scales on participating children at the beginning and end of the year (n=1497). Parent reports of children's social skills were also obtained for 725 children. Four-year-old children entering kindergarten the following year (n=978) were individually tested on social skills, executive functioning, and academic skills at the beginning and end of their pre-k year. Additional classroom observation and coded lesson plans documented fidelity, implementation, classroom climate, and classroom quality. Intervention teachers also completed weekly measures of curriculum implementation. Pre-k children from the first three years of the study were followed into kindergarten, and kindergarten teachers completed social skills rating scales and academic readiness mid-year, and school records were obtained for kindergarten screening scores, special services received during kindergarten, and promotion to first grade. The study addressed the following questions:

• Does SSEL improve children's social emotional skills, executive functioning, and school readiness skills as measured by teachers and independent assessors in preschool compared to classrooms not using SSEL?
• Do children participating in SSEL classrooms have stronger school system administered kindergarten readiness screenings, better kindergarten teacher-rated social skills and academic competency, and higher 1st grade promotion compared to children entering from comparison classrooms?
• To what extent are kindergarten readiness screenings and kindergarten teacher's ratings of social skills and academic competence mediated by preschool children's social emotional skills and executive functioning?
• Is there an effect of SSEL on preschool classroom climate?

The National Center for Early Development and Learning (NCEDL) Multi-State Study of Pre-Kindergarten examined the pre-kindergarten programs of six states: California, Illinois, New York, Ohio, Kentucky, and Georgia. For this study, pre-kindergarten (pre-k) included center-based programs for four-year-olds that are fully or partially funded by state education agencies and that are operated in schools or under the direction of state and local education agencies.

The study had two primary purposes:

1. To describe the variations of experiences for children in pre-kindergarten and kindergarten programs in school-related settings (public schools and state-funded pre-k classrooms in community-based settings), and

2. To examine the relationships between variations in pre-kindergarten/kindergarten experiences and children's outcomes in early elementary school.

The study addressed six primary groups of research questions:

1. What is the nature and distribution of education and experience of teachers and teacher assistants in pre-k public school programs?

2. What is the nature and distribution of global quality and specific practices in key areas such as literacy, math, and teacher-child relationships in a diverse sample of pre-k public school programs for four-year-olds as well as in a similarly diverse sample of kindergarten classes?

3. How do quality and practices vary as a result of child and teacher characteristics (e.g., child gender, race, home language, family income, and teacher's years of education) and classroom, program, community, and state structural variables (e.g., teacher-child ratio, funding base of the program, teacher salary, and degree of state regulation) for children with different demographic characteristics (e.g., race, gender, home language, and family income)?

4. Do quality and practice vary in relation to combinations of these variables? For example, are quality and practice a function of family poverty and teacher pay or education?

5. Can children's outcomes at the end of their pre-kindergarten year be predicted by the children's experiences in pre-k programs? Are the various dimensions of quality and/or practice differentially related to outcomes? Are these relationships constant across a population of children with different characteristics (e.g., race, gender, home language, and family income)?

6. Do pre-kindergarten program quality and practices predict children's transitions to kindergarten and children's skills at the end of the kindergarten year? Are these transitions moderated by children's characteristics, like race, gender, and family income?

The six states in the study were selected based on the significant amount of resources they have committed to pre-k initiatives. States were also selected to maximize the diversity in geography, program settings (public school or community), program intensity (full day versus part day), and educational requirements for teachers. Within each state, a random sample of 40 centers/schools was selected. One classroom in each center/school was selected at random for observation, and four children in each classroom were selected for individual assessment. The children were followed from the beginning of pre-k through the end of kindergarten. In five of the six states, families were also visited in their homes.

1. Classroom Services and Specific Instructional Practices

   Within the 40 classrooms in each participating state, carefully trained data collectors conducted classroom observations twice each year, while additional surveys were used to gather information from administrators/principals, teachers, and parents. Data were gathered on program services, (e.g., healthcare, meals, and transportation), program curriculum, teacher training and education, teachers' opinions of child development, and their instructional practices on subjects such as language, literacy, mathematics concepts, and social-emotional competencies. Data were also collected as to what types of steps were taken to aid children in their transitions from pre-k to kindergarten.

2. Children

   Within each participating pre-k classroom, four randomly selected children were assessed using a battery of individual instruments to measure language, literacy, mathematics, and related concept development, as well as social competence. A panel of expert reviewers aided the researchers in selecting a variety of standardized and nonstandardized assessments. The pre-k child assessments were conducted in the fall and spring of 2001-2002. The same children were followed into kindergarten and assessed in the fall and spring of 2002-2003 to examine whether specific practices employed by pre-k teachers made a difference in their transitions to kindergarten.

3. Families

   In individual home-based interviews, information on socio-economic, socio-cultural, and familial contexts were obtained through open-ended questions, structured ratings, and videotaped parent-child interactions. Specifically, parents were asked about (1) family life as it relates to socio-economic status and socio-cultural environment, (2) family educational practices and beliefs about the comparative roles of school and family in educating children, (3) the nature and quality of the home-school relationship, and (4) their own ratings of their children's psychological development and social competence.

Demographic information collected includes race, gender, family income, and mother's education level.

The above information pertains to the Main Child Level Public-Use Version and the Main Child Level Restricted-Use Version. From these main datasets, subsets were created at the classroom level for Pre-Kindergarten (Pre-K Classroom Level Public-Use Version and Pre-K Classroom Level Restricted-Use Version) and for Kindergarten (Kindergarten Classroom Level Public-Use Version and Kindergarten Classroom Level Restricted-Use Version).

Downloads of Add Health require submission of the following information, which is shared with the original producer of Add Health: supervisor name, supervisor email, and reason for download. A Data Guide for this study is available as a web page and for download.

The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health (Add Health), 1994-2018 [Public Use] is a longitudinal study of a nationally representative sample of U.S. adolescents in grades 7 through 12 during the 1994-1995 school year. The Add Health cohort was followed into young adulthood with four in-home interviews, the most recent conducted in 2008 when the sample was aged 24-32. Add Health combines longitudinal survey data on respondents' social, economic, psychological, and physical well-being with contextual data on the family, neighborhood, community, school, friendships, peer groups, and romantic relationships.

Add Health Wave I data collection took place between September 1994 and December 1995, and included both an in-school questionnaire and in-home interview. The in-school questionnaire was administered to more than 90,000 students in grades 7 through 12, and gathered information on social and demographic characteristics of adolescent respondents, education and occupation of parents, household structure, expectations for the future, self-esteem, health status, risk behaviors, friendships, and school-year extracurricular activities. All students listed on a sample school's roster were eligible for selection into the core in-home interview sample. In-home interviews included topics such as health status, health-facility utilization, nutrition, peer networks, decision-making processes, family composition and dynamics, educational aspirations and expectations, employment experience, romantic and sexual partnerships, substance use, and criminal activities. A parent, preferably the resident mother, of each adolescent respondent interviewed in Wave I was also asked to complete an interviewer-assisted questionnaire covering topics such as inheritable health conditions, marriages and marriage-like relationships, neighborhood characteristics, involvement in volunteer, civic, and school activities, health-affecting behaviors, education and employment, household income and economic assistance, parent-adolescent communication and interaction, parent's familiarity with the adolescent's friends and friends' parents.

Add Health data collection recommenced for Wave II from April to August 1996, and included almost 15,000 follow-up in-home interviews with adolescents from Wave I. Interview questions were generally similar to Wave I, but also included questions about sun exposure and more detailed nutrition questions. Respondents were asked to report their height and weight during the course of the interview, and were also weighed and measured by the interviewer.

From August 2001 to April 2002, Wave III data were collected through in-home interviews with 15,170 Wave I respondents (now 18 to 26 years old), as well as interviews with their partners. Respondents were administered survey questions designed to obtain information about family, relationships, sexual experiences, childbearing, and educational histories, labor force involvement, civic participation, religion and spirituality, mental health, health insurance, illness, delinquency and violence, gambling, substance abuse, and involvement with the criminal justice system. High School Transcript Release Forms were also collected at Wave III, and these data comprise the Education Data component of the Add Health study.

Wave IV in-home interviews were conducted in 2008 and 2009 when the original Wave I respondents were 24 to 32 years old. Longitudinal survey data were collected on the social, economic, psychological, and health circumstances of respondents, as well as longitudinal geographic data. Survey questions were expanded on educational transitions, economic status and financial resources and strains, sleep patterns and sleep quality, eating habits and nutrition, illnesses and medications, physical activities, emotional content and quality of current or most recent romantic/cohabiting/marriage relationships, and maltreatment during childhood by caregivers. Dates and circumstances of key life events occurring in young adulthood were also recorded, including a complete marriage and cohabitation history, full pregnancy and fertility histories from both men and women, an educational history of dates of degrees and school attendance, contact with the criminal justice system, military service, and various employment events, including the date of first and current jobs, with respective information on occupation, industry, wages, hours, and benefits. Finally, physical measurements and biospecimens were also collected at Wave IV, and included anthropometric measures of weight, height and waist circumference, cardiovascular measures such as systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, and pulse, metabolic measures from dried blood spots assayed for lipids, glucose, and glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c), measures of inflammation and immune function, including High sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) and Epstein-Barr virus (EBV).

Wave V data collection took place from 2016 to 2018, when the original Wave I respondents were 33 to 43 years old. For the first time, a mixed mode survey design was used. In addition, several experiments were embedded in early phases of the data collection to test response to various treatments. A similar range of data was collected on social, environmental, economic, behavioral, and health circumstances of respondents, with the addition of retrospective child health and socio-economic status questions. Physical measurements and biospecimens were again collected at Wave V, and included most of the same measures as at Wave IV.

The overall goal of Wave VI was to better understand life course trajectories, determinants, and consequences of critical dimensions of aging, health, and health disparities among U.S. early midlife adults. Data collection took place from 2022 to 2025, with participants between the ages of 39 and 51, with an average age of 44. Beyond longitudinal survey measures, newly added questions included those on cumulative stress, discrimination, despair, work-life balance, memory, physical limitations, and caregiving. Continuing from previous waves, home exams collected physical measurements and biospecimens with most of the same measures as Wave V.

The Partnership Impact Research Project is a three-year study designed to assess the nature of early education partnerships among Head Start, pre-kindergarten (pre-k), child care, and early care and education programs and their influence on child care quality and access to services. The project analyzes qualitative data in an existing database that was collected by the Quality in Linking Together (QUILT) Early Education Partnerships initiative. The QUILT database was designed to provide training and technical assistance in the development and sustainment of partnerships to professionals across the nation, including early care and education providers and state leaders. It is divided into two sections: state-level and local provider-level information. Both sections contain narratives, factual data, and documents. Additionally, the project collected new quantitative and qualitative data from randomly selected child care and Head Start providers in Ohio to study the influence of partnerships on the quality of and access to services.

The Partnership Impact Research Project explored questions about partnerships and their impact on child care and parents while attempting to determine whether state actions could influence both the development of provider-level partnerships and the processes partnerships engage in to sustain their work. Specifically, the study was designed to address the following objectives:

1. Conduct a qualitative analysis of data in an existing database to assess the nature of partnerships and state actions to support partnerships.
2. Conduct a longitudinal study that uses a quasi-experimental design and involves original data collection at three points in time to learn about the impact of partnerships on child care center quality, child care classroom quality, and accessibility of services for parents.
3. Develop detailed reports and research briefs, tailored to specific audiences such as legislators, administrators, and providers, that translate research findings into practical information that addresses questions frequently asked about child care partnerships.
4. Disseminate research reports and briefs through established networks of policy makers and practitioners, using their organizations' Web sites and publications.

The six datasets associated with this data collection are summarized below:

1. Child Care Center Data -- contains information on a variety of aspects about a child care center from the director's point of view with many focused questions aimed at the preschool population and an overview of the child care center as a whole. This dataset provides information about the population being served, services provided, teacher ratios, teacher training and education, annual budgets, funding sources, and other major aspects of a child care center in order to achieve an understanding of quality.
2. Child Care Center Partnership Data -- contains information about the child care partnership with the Head Start Agency that provides their services. There are five sections: funding sources, origins of the partnership, resources, nature of the partnership, and benefits/challenges. Information about how the partnership began, what the centers' role is, what services are provided, and a variety of general questions that inform others about the nature of the partnership are available in this dataset.
3. Head Start Background Data -- contains background information about a Head Start Agency that partners with child care centers and other information related to budget, funding sources, number of children served, and Head Start program organization.
4. Head Start Partnership Data -- a companion to the Head Start Background data, this dataset contains information about the specific partnership with each child care center the agency is involved with. There are four sections: background information, teacher training/professional development, services, and director information. Additionally, information on how the partnership began, what the agency's role is, what services are provided, and other general questions about the partnership is available.
5. Parent Data -- contains information on parents' views of the child care center that their preschooler attends. This dataset provides information about the population being served including home/school connection, how a parent views the classroom and the care being provided by the center, and the services available to both the child and parent through the center.
6. Teacher Data -- contains information about teachers' views of the child care center where they are employed. This dataset provides information about the population being served, services provided, teacher ratios, teacher training and education, and teacher experience in order to achieve an understanding of quality.

The National Center for Early Development and Learning (NCEDL) combined the data of two major studies in order to understand variations among state-funded pre-kindergarten (pre-k) programs and in turn, how these variations relate to child outcomes at the end of pre-k and in kindergarten. The Multi-State Study of Pre-Kindergarten and the State-Wide Early Education Programs (SWEEP) Study provide detailed information on pre-kindergarten teachers, children, and classrooms in 11 states. By combining data from both studies, information is available from 721 classrooms and 2,982 pre-kindergarten children in these 11 states.

Pre-kindergarten data collection for the Multi-State Study of Pre-Kindergarten took place during the 2001-2002 school year in six states: California, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, New York, and Ohio. These states were selected from among states that had committed significant resources to pre-k initiatives. States were selected to maximize diversity with regard to geography, program settings (public school or community setting), program intensity (full-day vs. part-day), and educational requirements for teachers. In each state, a stratified random sample of 40 centers/schools was selected from the list of all the school/centers or programs (both contractors and subcontractors) provided to the researchers by each state's department of education.

In total, 238 sites participated in the fall and two additional sites joined the study in the spring. Participating teachers helped the data collectors recruit children into the study by sending recruitment packets home with all children enrolled in the classroom. On the first day of data collection, the data collectors determined which of the children were eligible to participate. Eligible children were those who (1) would be old enough for kindergarten in the fall of 2002, (2) did not have an Individualized Education Plan, according to the teacher, and (3) spoke English or Spanish well enough to understand simple instructions, according to the teacher.

Pre-kindergarten data collection for the SWEEP Study took place during the 2003-2004 school year in five states: Massachusetts, New Jersey, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin. These states were selected to complement the states already in the Multi-State Study of Pre-K by including programs with significantly different funding models or modes of service delivery. In each of the five states, 100 randomly selected state-funded pre-kindergarten sites were recruited for participation in the study from a list of all sites provided by the state.

In total, 465 sites participated in the fall. Two sites declined to continue participation in the spring, resulting in 463 sites participating in the spring. Participating teachers helped the data collectors recruit children into the study by sending recruitment packets home with all children enrolled in the classroom. On the first day of data collection, the data collectors determined which of the children were eligible to participate. Eligible children were those who (1) would be old enough for kindergarten in the fall of 2004, (2) did not have an Individualized Education Plan, according to the teacher, and (3) spoke English or Spanish well enough to understand simple instructions, according to the teacher.

Demographic information collected across both studies includes race, teacher gender, child gender, family income, mother's education level, and teacher education level.

The researchers also created a variable for both the child-level data and the class-level data which allows secondary users to subset cases according to either the Multi-State or SWEEP study.

Project SOARS (Student Ownership, Accountability, and Responsibility for School Safety) utilized a mixed-methods study design to develop and test a student-centered and technology-driven school safety framework to address peer victimization, violent behavior, and student reluctance to share critical safety information within high school settings. SOARS was a project of IRIS Media, Inc. and consisted of 4 phases implemented between 2016 and 2020. Activities for each phase were carried out in Oregon and Illinois high schools in order to facilitate inter-site replication of outcomes. Phase 1 was conducted in 2016 and consisted of focus groups and key informant interviews with students, school personnel, and parents to gather perceptions of current school safety practices. Phase 2 was undertaken in 2017 and asked students, school personnel, and parents to assess the acceptability and usability of prototypes of the SOARS framework. The SOARS framework consisted of (a) the Advocatr mobile app, which allowed students to report positive and negative behaviors in their school environment; (b) a 9-week curriculum engaging students with the concepts of student ownership of school safety, advocacy/self-advocacy, physical and emotional safety, and restorative conflict resolution; (c) informational briefs for school personnel and parents about the framework components and their rationale; and (d) guidelines for a student-led school-wide safety campaign. Phase 3 was rolled out in 2018 and 2019 and consisted of feasibility testing conducted with a small subset of teachers and students in those teachers' classrooms. Participants were surveyed before and after implementation of the SOARS framework. The focus of the feasibility test was on student access and use of the Advocatr app and the accompanying curriculum. During Phase 4 implementation in 2019 and 2020, researchers conducted a pilot test with students, school personnel, and parents from 4 high schools, 2 assigned to the intervention and 2 to the control condition. The focus of the pilot was to test the effectiveness of the SOARS framework.

Demographic information was collected from all informants and includes gender (sex male or female; transgender identification), ethnicity, and race. Additional demographic information about students includes sexual orientation, approximate age (over/under 18 years), primary language, GPA, and grade. Parent demographics also include education level and student's grade, while school personnel (teachers and staff) also provided information regarding education level, school role, job title, years in current position, grades taught, and subjects taught.

Users should note that qualitative data collected during phase 1 focus groups and phase 2 user acceptance tests are not included in version 1 of the ICPSR release. Additionally, in the quantitative datasets, character variables featuring open-ended string responses have been masked by ICPSR. This study will be updated at a later date to include qualitative data files and character variables in the quantitative datasets.

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.

The Schools and Families Education (SAFE) Children Study was a randomized control trial designed to test the efficacy of a family-based comprehensive preventive intervention, with children living in inner-city Chicago and entering the 1st grade, for effects on key risk markers for later drug and other substance use.

A total of 11 waves of data were collected over the course of three phases and approximately 13 years. In the spring of 1997, there were 424 kindergarten students and primary caregivers recruited to participate in this study. Wave 1 began while the children were in 1st grade. These data contain survey responses for students, their primary caregivers, and their teachers across 27 datasets.

Phase I of the study was to assess the intervention provided in the 1st grade. Half of the families were randomly selected to receive the intervention. The other half were assigned to the control group. Phase II of the study was set-up to give half of the intervention group a booster, a second intervention training. Lastly, there was a Phase III which sought to assess the long-term affects of the initial and booster interventions.

The first dataset (DS1) provides an overview of the study which includes variables for the study design and survey administration. This first file contains 38 variables.

Survey responses were obtained from students nine times beginning in 1st grade and ending in 12th grade. Children were not surveyed in waves 3 and 7. The student survey response data are in DS2 through DS10. The datasets for waves 1, 2, 4, and 5 contain only 50 variables. Waves 6, 8, and 9 contain 424 variables. Waves 10 and 11 contain 1,394 variables. Each of the three phases contain almost identical variables within their respective waves.

The children's primary caregivers were also surveyed nine times over the survey period. Primary caregivers were not surveyed in waves 3 and 7. These data are contained in DS11 through DS19. The primary caregiver files vary in the number and content of variables. On average each wave contains about 1,060 variables with a low of 470 on up to a high of 1,435.

Teachers were surveyed during each of the first eight waves of the study. The teacher data are in DS20 through DS27. Waves 1 and 2 contain just over 120 variables. Waves 3, 4, and 5 contain 145 variables. And waves 6, 7, and 8 contain 173 variables. Each of the three phases contain almost identical variables within their respective waves.

The Social Capital and Children's Development data were collected in a study of the causal effects of social capital on levels and inequalities of children's social and cognitive development during the early elementary years. The study included 52 schools in Phoenix and San Antonio, including 3,084 first graders and their families, and over 200 teachers, with half the schools randomly selected for the intervention and half serving as controls. Children from low-income Latino families were a special focus of the study. The experimental design of this study allowed for testing of the causal role of social capital. Social capital here refers to trust and shared expectations embedded in social networks of parents, teachers, and children. For young children, social capital operates primarily through their relationships with their parents, enhancing development through mechanisms of social support and social control.

The research design was experimental: social capital was manipulated through a well-tested randomized intervention, Families and Schools Together (FAST), that enhanced social capital among parents, teachers, and children through an intensive after-school program and a 2-year follow-up program. FAST is intended to reduce parental isolation, enhance family engagement with schools, and strengthen family functioning; that is, to increase social capital between families and schools, among families, and within families to improve children's education and life-long outcomes. Key aspects of child development were assessed, including (a) social skills and problem behavior from standardized behavioral ratings by parents and teachers, and (b) grade retention, attendance rates, and third-grade reading and mathematics scores from school records. Social capital was measured with repeated surveys of teachers and parents that address the extent of social networks, parent involvement, trust, and shared expectations among parents, between parents and schools, and between parents and children. Demographic variables of this study include native language, years in the United States, date of birth/age, race/ethnicity, gender, and household composition.

The Taiwan Education Panel Survey (TEPS) is a national longitudinal project initiated by Academia Sinica and jointly funded by Ministry of Education, the National Science Council, and Academia Sinica. The objective of TEPS is to stimulate more basic research in the fields of education, sociology, economics, and psychology by employing large scale panel data on representative samples of students, and their parents, teachers, and school administrators. In a nutshell, TEPS has five distinguishing features: (1) Theory driven: The focus is on the skills, behavioral, values, and psychological consequences of schooling institutions and family environments of students. Factors that are found in the literature to affect students' learning outcomes are all included. Specifically speaking, an AOE model of learning outcomes, representing learning capabilities (Ability), learning opportunities (Opportunity), and the amount of effort made by the students (Effort), serves as a guiding framework for questionnaire development. Ability and effort are more on students themselves while opportunities covers family, teachers, and school environment, peers, and so forth.

(2) Student centered and multidimensional and multi-levels: Central to the project were questionnaire surveys of students. The data collection extends to cover the most influential actors in their learning environment: parents, teachers, and schools. It covered nested multiple levels of data - individual students, classes, and schools, etc.

(3) Panel surveys covering multiple programs and multiple cohorts: Students in junior high (G7 to G9), senior high (G10 to G12), vocational (G10 to G12), and junior college (G10 to G14) programs were administered for data collection. All students were followed at least twice. A portion of them were followed four times at G7, G9, G11, and G12. In light of the ongoing transformation of the Taiwanese educational system in 1990s, the project started with two cohorts of approximately 40,000 students, making it possible to employ a quasi-experimental design in future analysis.

(4) National representative samples of the students: Students under data collection were representative samples of the 1984/85 and 1988/89 birth cohorts. Weighting is provided according to the probabilistic sampling design.

(5) Public goods: Data are made available to the public as soon as the data collection and data cleaning is completed, thereby providing an important resource for both academic and policy research.