Search results

Financial aid plays an essential role not only in allowing many students to enroll in college but also in supporting them in attaining completion and success. Often, however, the total amount of aid does not come close to covering the cost of attendance for full-time students. As a result, the majority of students enrolled at two-year public institutions report feeling financial stress related to paying for school. Students often work while attending college to cover the full cost of attendance, but time spent work-ing can have a negative impact on their academic success.

MDRC launched Aid Like A Paycheck to test whether changes to the timing of student aid disbursement could help students stretch their financial aid to cover their expenses throughout the term, and whether such a policy could improve students' academic and financial outcomes. Most colleges distribute financial aid refunds to students in one or two lump sums during the term. Aid Like A Paycheck tested an alternate approach, in which financial aid refunds were disbursed biweekly, with the goal of helping students better budget their existing financial aid.

MDRC conducted a mixed-methods evaluation of incremental financial aid disbursements at two community college systems in and around Houston, Texas, and at a third system in California's rural Central Valley. At the two institutions in Texas, the study included a randomized controlled trial that gathered data from nearly 9,000 students and tracked them for up to two years.

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 files for a brief dscription of the files available with this collection and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed.

The qualitative data are not available as part of the data collection at this time.

Numerous high-profile events involving student victimization on school buses have raised critical questions regarding the safety of school-based transportation for children, the efforts taken by school districts to protect students on buses, and the most effective transportation-based behavioral management strategies for reducing misconduct. To address these questions, a national web-based survey was administered to public school district-level transportation officials throughout the United States to assess the prevalence of misconduct on buses, identify strategies to address misconduct, and describe effective ways to reduce student misbehavior on buses. Telephone interviews were also conducted with a small group of transportation officials to understand the challenges of transportation-based behavioral management, to determine successful strategies to create safe and positive school bus environments, and to identify data-driven approaches for tracking and assessing disciplinary referrals.

The collection includes 10 Stata data files:

• BVSBS_analysis file.dta (n=2,595; 1058 variables)
• Title Crosswalk File.dta (n=2,594; 3 variables)
• Lessons Learned and Open Dummies.dta (n=1,543; 200 variables)
• CCD dataset.dta (n=12,494; 89 variables)
• BVSB_REGION.dta (n=4; 3 variables)
• BVSB_SCHOOLS.dta (n=3; 3 variables)
• BVSB_STUDENTS.dta (n=3; 3 variables)
• BVSB_URBAN.dta (n=8; 3 variables)
• BVSB_WHITE.dta (n=3; 3 variables)
• FINALRAKER.dta (n=2,595; 2 variables)

The Community College Civic Outcomes Survey, Spring 2015 study examines the individual and institutional factors associated with greater civic agency, capacity, behavior, and knowledge among college students. In Spring 2015, two surveys were digitally administered at nine community colleges. These nine colleges were purposively selected for diversity in terms of geography, campus setting, size, and the racial and ethnic composition of their student bodies. From a total of 98,838 recipients, 4,788 usable surveys were returned, for an aggregate five percent response rate (response rates varied from two to 13% among the nine colleges). This data includes a sample of 3,897 from those surveys collected.

The Civic Outcomes Survey (COS) was administered to students, and included questions related to voting, political and community engagement, civic knowledge, and leadership development. The Institutional Questionnaire (IQ), was admitted to each college's liaisons to The Democracy Commitment (TDC), and included questions related to college-level factors known to influence student engagement. These questions assessed for institutional intentionality towards civic engagement through college missions and strategic planning, as well as academic and faculty focus on civic involvement. Both instruments were previously tested in a small regional pilot and were subsequently refined to allow for greater response variability. Demographic variables include race, income, gender, and enrollment status.

The Community College Civic Outcomes Survey, Spring 2016 study examines the individual and institutional factors associated with greater civic agency, capacity, behavior, and knowledge among college students. In Spring 2016, two surveys were digitally administered at 13 community colleges, or community college systems. These colleges were purposively selected for diversity in terms of geography, campus setting, size, and the racial and ethnic composition of their student bodies. This data includes a sample of 1,693 surveys from those collected.

The Civic Outcomes Survey (COS) was administered to students, and included questions related to voting, political and community engagement, civic knowledge, and leadership development. The Institutional Questionnaire (IQ), was admitted to each college's liaisons to The Democracy Commitment (TDC), and included questions related to college-level factors known to influence student engagement. These questions assessed for institutional intentionality towards civic engagement through college missions and strategic planning, as well as academic and faculty focus on civic involvement. Both instruments were previously tested in a small regional pilot and were subsequently refined to allow for greater response variability. Demographic variables include race, income, gender, and enrollment status.

The Community College Civic Outcomes Survey, Spring 2017 study examines the individual and institutional factors associated with greater civic agency, capacity, behavior, and knowledge among college students. In Spring 2017, two surveys were digitally administered at 8 community colleges, or community college systems. These colleges were purposively selected for diversity in terms of geography, campus setting, size, and the racial and ethnic composition of their student bodies. This data includes a sample of 1,168 surveys from those collected.

The Civic Outcomes Survey (COS) was administered to students, and included questions related to voting, political and community engagement, civic knowledge, and leadership development. The Institutional Questionnaire (IQ), was admitted to each college's liaisons to The Democracy Commitment (TDC), and included questions related to college-level factors known to influence student engagement. These questions assessed for institutional intentionality towards civic engagement through college missions and strategic planning, as well as academic and faculty focus on civic involvement. Both instruments were previously tested in a small regional pilot and were subsequently refined to allow for greater response variability. Demographic variables include race, income, gender, and enrollment status.

This study used a multi-systems approach to understand the root causes of school violence in the state of Oregon (United States), accounting for factors within the individual, family, school, juvenile justice, child protective services, and social services systems and how they work together in predicting school violence. The effort was guided by four Research Questions:

1. What are the potential root causes and related factors that contribute to school violence?
2. What are the disciplinary responses to school violence, and are rates of suspensions and expulsions equivalent across demographic subgroups of students?
3. What is the sequence of events that lead from a school-related disciplinary incident to an arrest and to juvenile or adult court involvement and disposition, and which individual, family, school, and neighborhood factors influence this trajectory?
4. What are the responses to and consequences of shootings in K-12 public settings?

To answer these questions, RMC Research, with support from the the Oregon Youth Authority (OYA) and the Oregon Department of Education (ODE), conducted a secondary analysis of existing data on 15 cohorts of students between kindergarten and grade 12. Research Questions 1, 2, and 3 were addressed using a multi-level cohort design with longitudinal data provided by OYA (n=5,129,815 observations across time from 855,580 unique youth). Research Question 4 was addressed through an extensive review of research on school safety strategies.

This collection contains 16 SPSS syntax files used to clean and analyze the secondary data, detailed guides to data preparation and data-related decisions made by the research team, and a list of obtained data files and variables. There are no data files in this collection.

The Comprehensive School Safety Initiative (CSSI) is a research-focused initiative that was launched by the National Institute of Justice in response to high-profile incidents of school violence. The CSSI grant program aimed to identify and understand the root causes of school violence and identify effective strategies for responding to and resolving safety and security issues. The Atlanta Comprehensive School Safety Initiative (Atlanta CSSI) project, funded in 2016 under the National Institute of Justice's CSSI grant program, and as a partnership between researchers and practitioners, centered around the fundamental question of how to design and implement safe and supportive learning environments for students in Atlanta Public Schools (APS).

Since 2014, district leadership from APS and researchers from WestEd and Georgia State University (GSU) developed a blended research and technical assistance approach to make progress towards improving school safety. The findings are based on data gathered through:

1. focus groups with school-and district-based staff;
2. observational protocols and meeting notes; and
3. school-level student climate and discipline data gathered by the state.

Using a multi-methods research design, this study classified the contents of cyberbullying messages, measured their frequency and associations with offline bullying, and examined whether and how peer groups in social networks promote these behaviors.

Beginning in January 2015, 164 adolescents from 2 Iowa middle schools, grades 6 through 8, were surveyed. Two surveys, one at the start of the spring semester and one at the end of spring 2015, gathered self-reported information on perpetration, victimization, and witnessing of online and offline bullying and the structure of peer networks. A total of 77 students furthermore participated in an electronic capture period from January through May 2015. Participant smartphones were equipped with an application that collected incoming and outgoing text messages and Facebook and Twitter activity, and also surveyed them weekly about their bullying experiences. Demographic information collected included age, grade, gender, ethnicity, parents' marital status, household composition, religiosity, and socioeconomic status.

City Year is an education and human development organization that partners with schools nationwide to support student success and address the root causes of inequitable educational outcomes. Every year, City Year recruits a diverse group of AmeriCorps members, ages 18-25, to deliver its holistic Whole School Whole Child (WSWC) model. The corps members commit to serving as "Student Success Coaches" in schools full time for one school year. During that time, they provide universal holistic services to all students (Tier 1 services), as well as targeted academic, social and emotional, behavior, and attendance services to students at increased risk of not graduating based on early warning indicators (Tier 2 services).

In 2017, the American Institutes for Research (AIR) and MDRC began a five-year evaluation of WSWC services in 22 middle schools in five large, urban school districts. The evaluation includes two impact studies. The first study explored the implementation and effects of the entire WSWC model (Tier 1 and Tier 2 services) for all students, using a quasi-experimental study design ("Whole School Study"). The second study attempted to isolate the effect of Tier 2 services for students who were identified as being at heightened risk of dropping out of school, using a student-level randomized experiment ("Tier 2 Study").

This data collection features data from the first study.

School safety research rarely considers the school security climate as a product of the simultaneous implementation of several school safety interventions. This is potentially problematic, as schools seldom employ only one safety intervention. Rather, schools today employ several interventions simultaneously to meet their safety and security needs. The purpose of this study is to investigate and identify effective types of school security climates and examine student growth within these climates. This multi-year project attempts to meet two goals: 1) Identify effective types of school security climates; and 2) Determine how the school security climate affects individual students. Data were collected from approximately 600 students attending 10 schools over the course of three years. Measures included an adapted version of the School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS) and the Maryland Safe and Supportive Schools Survey (MDS3). The survey also included questions to obtain respondent demographics (age, gender, race/ethnicity) and other descriptive information about students and their experiences.

This study seeks to inform about the effectiveness and impact of school safety programs in the state of Virginia. In many Virginia schools, ensuring school safety often involves the use of School Resource Officers (SRO) and School Security Officers (SSO), or some combination of SROs and SSOs. This study investigated the current state of SRO and SSO programs in Virginia to illuminate how SRO and SSO programs are operating and uncover best practices associated with program development, implementation, and evaluation. Specifically, the research questions were:

• RQ1: How are SROs and SSOs trained to operate in K-12 public schools in the Commonwealth of Virginia?
• RQ2:What are the criteria that are being used to select SROs and SSOs to operate in schools?
• RQ3: How are the activities of SROs and SSOs that do not result in an arrest being documented?
• RQ4: How are SROs and SSOs operating in schools supervised by their own department and/or by the school(s) in which they operate?
• RQ5: What criteria are used to assess SRO and SSO performance?
• RQ6: To what extent are SROs and SSOs involved addressing school disciplinary matters that do not rise to the level of criminal activity?
• RQ7: Are there differences when comparing between school districts that have MOUs with local law enforcement, and school districts that do not have formal arrangements with local law enforcement?

Communities In Schools (CIS) works to provide and connect students with integrated support services to keep them on a path to graduation. The intent of the CIS model is to reduce dropout rates by integrating community and school-based support services within schools through the provision of "Level 1" and "Level 2" services. Level 1 services are broadly available to all students or to groups of students and are usually short-term, low intensity activities or services. CIS Coordinators spend much of their time focused on more intensive Level 2 "case-managed" services, which they provide to a subset of students displaying one or more significant risk factors, such as poor academic performance, a high absentee rate, or behavioral problems.

This study was a two-year randomized controlled trial of Level-2 CIS case management, which examined service provision, student experiences and student outcomes. This trial was half of a two-pronged national evaluation, the other half was a quasi-experimental study of the whole-school model. The study evaluated 24 mostly urban, low-income secondary schools in North Carolina and Texas during the 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 school years; baseline data was also collected during the 2011-2012 school year. Data was collected through student surveys, school records, and CIS management information systems (MIS) data.

The data in this collection is student-level, including all information collected about students in the study sample with 613 variables and 4459 cases. The dataset includes three school years of data: baseline period (2011-2012), first year of implementation (2012-2013) and second year of implementation (2013-2014). Demographic variables in this collection include: free lunch status, special education status, employment, race, language, ethnicity, gender, household members, number of siblings, parents' education level, and grade level.

The MET project is based on two premises: First, a teacher's evaluation should depend to a significant extent on his/her students' achievement gains; second, any additional components of the evaluation (e.g., classroom observations) should be valid predictors of student achievement gain.

Student achievement was measured in two ways -- through existing state assessments, designed to assess student progress on the state curriculum for accountability purposes, and supplemental assessments, designed to assess higher-order conceptual understanding. The supplemental assessments used were:

• Stanford 9 (SAT-9) Open-Ended Reading Assessment in grades 4 through 8
• Balanced Assessment in Mathematics (BAM) in grades 4 through 8
• ACT QualityCore series for Algebra I, English 9, and Biology

Panoramic digital video of classroom sessions were taken of participating teachers and students, teachers submitted commentary on their lessons (e.g., specifying the learning objective) and then trained raters scored the lesson based on classroom observation protocols using the following five observation protocols:

• Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS), developed by Robert Pianta, University of Virginia
• Framework for Teaching (FFT), developed by Charlotte Danielson
• Mathematical Quality of Instruction (MQI), developed by Heather Hill, Harvard University, and Deborah Loewenberg Ball, University of Michigan
• Protocol for Language Arts Teaching Observations (PLATO), developed by Pam Grossman, Stanford University
• Quality Science Teaching (QST) Instrument, developed by Raymond Pecheone, Stanford University

A subset of the videos are also being scored using an observational protocol developed by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS).

Close to 3,000 teacher volunteers from across the following 6, predominantly urban, school districts participated in the MET project: Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools, Dallas Independent School District, Denver Public Schools, Hillsborough County Public Schools, Memphis City Schools, and the New York City Department of Education. Participants teach math and English language arts (ELA) in grades 4-8, Algebra I, grade 9 English, and high school biology.

1. District/School File - This data file contains an ID for the district where MET teachers taught and data on the schools where they taught. All data are from year one of the study. The data included for schools include limited measures of school organization, student composition, and aggregated test score information. The file also includes data collected from school principals about the nature of teacher evaluation processes in a school.
2. Teacher File - This data file contains data on those MET teachers who participated in year one of the study only or who participated in both years of the study. There is one data record per teacher. Data in the teacher file was collected (or recorded) only once during the study. Among the variables included in the file are: (1) teacher IDs; (2) ID variables for district and school; (3) variables indicating a teacher's grade, subject, and study status; (4) measures of teachers' personal characteristics and professional background; (5) teacher responses to MET teacher working conditions survey [administered in year one of the study]; (6) teacher responses to the MET teacher survey administered [in year two of the study]; (7) teachers' scaled scores as well as multiple choice and constructed response sub-scores for the CKT measures; and (8) principal ratings of a teacher's effectiveness.
3. Class Section File - This data file contains data on the focal class sections taught by MET teachers. There is one data record per section. In most cases, generalists have one class section per year in the study, so that teachers who participated in both years of the study will have a total of 2 class sections of data per teacher record per year. Specialists generally have 2 class sections in year one and 1 class section in year two year, so that teachers who participated in both years of the study will have a total of up to 3 class sections of data per teacher record. Among the variables included for each class section taught by a teacher are: (1) section IDs; (2) ID variables for teacher, school, and district; (3) variables indicating a teacher's grade, subject, and study status; (4) measures of class composition, including aggregated data on students' prior year test scores, ethnic composition, free lunch status, and special education status; and (5) class size. Also included in this data file are: (6) value-added measures of teaching effectiveness based on student achievement scores [aggregated to the section level]; (7) measures of teaching effectiveness based on classroom observation score data [aggregated to the section level]; and (8) measures of teaching effectiveness based on student survey data [aggregated to the section level].
4. Student File - These data files contain data on students who were in the focal class sections of MET teachers during either year. Data on each student include: (1) student ID; (2) ID variables for section, teacher, school, and district; (3) measures of current and prior student achievement for all tests/years recorded [e.g., 2010-2011, 2009-2010; and up to three prior years]; (4) measures of student background [sex, ethnicity, lunch status, special education status, program participation]; and (5) student survey responses.
5. Classroom Observation Scores File - These data files contain data from all classroom observation sessions conducted on each teacher. There will be one file per observation instrument and each file will have one record for each segment scored by a rater. Data on each observation session include: (1) a segment ID, (2) ID variables for video, section, teacher, school, and district; (3) variables indicating the video's grade, and subject; (4) a variable indicating whether score comes from the primary scorer or a secondary scorer; (5) scores on the dimensions of the given observation instrument; (5) a variable indicating if the rater deferred scoring of the video to the scoring leader. Note that each video will generally have multiple rows because scores were given at the segment level. Additionally, instruments with different segment scoring lengths will not be comparable at the segment level.

The MET project is based on two premises: First, a teacher's evaluation should depend to a significant extent on his/her students' achievement gains; second, any additional components of the evaluation (e.g., classroom observations) should be valid predictors of student achievement gain.

Student achievement was measured in two ways--through existing state assessments, designed to assess student progress on the state curriculum for accountability purposes, and supplemental assessments, designed to assess higher-order conceptual understanding. The supplemental assessments used were Stanford 9 Open-Ended Reading Assessment in grades 4 through 8, Balanced Assessment in Mathematics (BAM) in grades 4 through 8, and the ACT QualityCore series for Algebra I, English 9, and Biology.

Panoramic digital video of classroom sessions were taken of participating teachers and students, teachers submitted commentary on their lessons (e.g., specifying the learning objective) and then trained raters scored the lesson based on classroom observation protocols using the following five observation protocols:

• Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS), developed by Robert Pianta, University of Virginia

• Framework for Teaching, developed by Charlotte Danielson

• Mathematical Quality of Instruction (MQI), developed by Heather Hill, Harvard University, and Deborah Loewenberg Ball, University of Michigan

• Protocol for Language Arts Teaching Observations (PLATO), developed by Pam Grossman, Stanford University

• Quality Science Teaching (QST) Instrument, developed by Raymond Pecheone, Stanford University

A subset of the videos also are being scored using an observational protocol developed by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS)

Close to 3,000 teacher volunteers from across the following six, predominantly urban, school districts participated in the MET project: Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools, Dallas Independent School District, Denver Public Schools, Hillsborough County Public Schools, Memphis City Schools, and the New York City Department of Education. Participants teach math and English language arts (ELA) in grades 4-8, Algebra I, grade 9 English, and high school biology.

The MET project is based on two premises: First, a teacher's evaluation should depend to a significant extent on his/her students' achievement gains; second, any additional components of the evaluation (e.g., classroom observations) should be valid predictors of student achievement gain.

Student achievement was measured in two ways -- through existing state assessments, designed to assess student progress on the state curriculum for accountability purposes, and supplemental assessments, designed to assess higher-order conceptual understanding. The supplemental assessments used were:

• Stanford 9 (SAT 9) Open-Ended Reading Assessment in grades 4 through 8
• Balanced Assessment in Mathematics (BAM) in grades 4 through 8
• ACT QualityCore series for Algebra I, English 9, and Biology (ACT)

Close to 3,000 teacher volunteers from across the following 6, predominantly urban, school districts participated in the MET project: Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools, Dallas Independent School District, Denver Public Schools, Hillsborough County Public Schools, Memphis City Schools, and the New York City Department of Education. Participants teach math and English language arts (ELA) in grades 4-8, Algebra I, grade 9 English, and high school biology.

The Item-Level Supplemental Test Files release consists of data files for the three supplemental assessments (SAT 9, BAM, and ACT).

The MET project is based on two premises: First, a teacher's evaluation should depend to a significant extent on his/her students' achievement gains; second, any additional components of the evaluation (e.g., classroom observations) should be valid predictors of student achievement gain.

Student achievement was measured in two ways -- through existing state assessments, designed to assess student progress on the state curriculum for accountability purposes, and supplemental assessments, designed to assess higher-order conceptual understanding.

Panoramic digital video of classroom sessions were taken of participating teachers and students, teachers submitted commentary on their lessons (e.g., specifying the learning objective) and then trained raters scored the lesson based on classroom observation protocols using the following five observation protocols:

• Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS), developed by Robert Pianta, University of Virginia
• Framework for Teaching (FFT), developed by Charlotte Danielson
• Mathematical Quality of Instruction (MQI), developed by Heather Hill, Harvard University, and Deborah Loewenberg Ball, University of Michigan
• Protocol for Language Arts Teaching Observations (PLATO), developed by Pam Grossman, Stanford University
• Quality Science Teaching (QST) Instrument, developed by Raymond Pecheone, Stanford University

A subset of the videos also are being scored using an observational protocol developed by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) and using the UTeach Observational Protocol (UTOP), developed by the UTeach Preparation Program.

Close to 3,000 teacher volunteers from across the following 6, predominantly urban, school districts participated in the MET project: Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools, Dallas Independent School District, Denver Public Schools, Hillsborough County Public Schools, Memphis City Schools, and the New York City Department of Education. Participants teach math and English language arts (ELA) in grades 4-8, Algebra I, grade 9 English, and high school biology.

The Item-Level Observational Scores Release

This release consists of data files for the five observational protocols listed (CLASS, FFT, MQI, PLATO, and QST) and the UTOP subset. Also included are rater comment files explaining rater scores on the CLASS instrument and master coded scores for the CLASS, FFT, PLATO, MQI and QST observational measures.

The MET project is based on two premises: First, a teacher's evaluation should depend to a significant extent on his/her students' achievement gains; second, any additional components of the evaluation (e.g., classroom observations) should be valid predictors of student achievement gain.

Student achievement was measured in two ways -- through existing state assessments, designed to assess student progress on the state curriculum for accountability purposes, and supplemental assessments, designed to assess higher-order conceptual understanding. The supplemental assessments used were Stanford 9 Open-Ended Reading Assessment in grades 4 through 8, Balanced Assessment in Mathematics (BAM) in grades 4 through 8, and the ACT QualityCore series for Algebra I, English 9, and Biology.

Panoramic digital video of classroom sessions were taken of participating teachers and students, teachers submitted commentary on their lessons (e.g., specifying the learning objective) and then trained raters scored the lesson based on classroom observation protocols using the following five observation protocols:

• Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS), developed by Robert Pianta, University of Virginia

• Framework for Teaching (FFT), developed by Charlotte Danielson

• Mathematical Quality of Instruction (MQI), developed by Heather Hill, Harvard University, and Deborah Loewenberg Ball, University of Michigan

• Protocol for Language Arts Teaching Observations (PLATO), developed by Pam Grossman, Stanford University

• Quality Science Teaching (QST) Instrument, developed by Raymond Pecheone, Stanford University

A subset of the videos also are being scored using an observational protocol developed by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) and using the UTeach Observational Protocol (UTOP), developed by the UTeach Preparation Program.

Close to 3,000 teacher volunteers from across the following six, predominantly urban, school districts participated in the MET project: Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools, Dallas Independent School District, Denver Public Schools, Hillsborough County Public Schools, Memphis City Schools, and the New York City Department of Education. Participants teach math and English language arts (ELA) in grades 4-8, Algebra I, grade 9 English, and high school biology.

The Item-Level Survey Instruments and Assessment Files release consists of data files created from the six collection instruments described below:

• The Principal Survey focuses on whether principals already know what they need to know about the effectiveness of their teachers or whether the instruments provide new information to these principals. The survey asks principals to provide an effectiveness rating for up to 12 MET teachers. It asks them how confident they are about each rating and what information they use to assess effective teaching.

• The Student Perception Survey analyzes the value of elementary and secondary student feedback on the effort to improve both teaching and learning. Questions were created to elucidate the perceptions of the students and their school and classroom experiences.

• The Teacher Web Survey was created to help answer whether teachers take seriously the rating provide by their administrator. It asks teachers to report whether they trust their principal -- Using Meyer, Davis, and Schoonhoven's three bases of trust: consistency, competency, and benevolence. It also asks teachers whether and to what extent they have acted on the feedback provided by their principal and whether the change made a positive difference in their teaching effectiveness.

• The Teacher Working Condition Survey questions were intended to shed light on the level of support existing for teachers at their school environments, e.g., whether educators are valued, trusted, and have the time and ability to collaborate to improve instruction, as well as other aspects of working conditions such as time, facilities and resources, empowerment, professional development, community engagement, induction and leadership.

• The Teacher Knowledge Assessment questions were intended to test the utility of both newly developed and well established measures of teacher knowledge to predict measures of teacher effectiveness.

• The Survey of Enacted Curriculum was intended to investigate the role that the content of instruction plays in affecting student achievement gains, as compared to the study's broader focus on instructional quality measures

The Oregon Youth Substance Use Project (OYSUP) began in 1998, with the recruitment of 1,075 first through fifth graders within a single school district in a working class community in western Oregon. Youth were followed from early childhood (1st through 5th grade), through adolescence, and into emerging adulthood (at age 20-22), with additional data collection at age 20 to 26. The primary objective of OYSUP was to identify risk and protective factors predictive of or comorbid with the development of substance use and at-risk sexual behaviors. OYSUP consisted of a multi-method annual assessment of etiological factors across numerous contextual (e.g., family, peer, neighborhood and school) and individual (personality, biological) domains, predictive of children's cognitions regarding substance use, their own substance use and their at-risk sexual behaviors (beginning in middle school). This unique study follows a representative sample of youth with approximately annual assessments from early childhood, through adolescence, and into emerging adulthood (at age 20-22). The primary objective of the original project and its renewals is to identify risk and protective factors predictive of or comorbid with the development of substance use and at-risk sexual behaviors.

Quantitative survey data was collected from each respondent from 1998 to 2014. Within the aims of the original OYSUP study and the three subsequent renewals, participants and their parents were followed annually until they were one-year post-high school, with an additional intensive assessment at age 20-22. In each year, the target participant and their parents completed assessments. The intensive assessment at age 20-22 included a diagnostic interview with the target participants and an assessment of cortisol reactivity in response to acute stress. During the school years, teachers completed assessments assessing their student's behavior, and school records for most students were obtained each year. In addition, principals in elementary schools completed school climate assessments and census data is used to obtain measures of neighborhood climate. In the third renewal, questionnaires and interviews were given across a two-year span, when participants were aged 20 to 26. The goal of this supplement was to investigate the factors leading to e-cigarette use and and use of other novel tobacco products across two years. Finally, respondents' demographic information was also collected.

This study surveyed chief academic and student affairs officers at colleges across the United States on success measures, services offered, resource challenges and constraints, and vision for future service provision. The questionnaire investigated the current structure and organization of services, challenges senior administrators face, and their anticipated changes to service provision in the future.