Downloads and Free Reading Options

Over the last decade, increased attention on education has led to an expansion in the amount of information on students and their schools and school districts reported to parents and the general public (20 U.S.C. Section 6311). States now report student outcomes based on assessments of student achievement in specific subjects and grade levels for all students, as well as for subgroups defined by gender, race and ethnicity, English proficiency status, migrant status, disability status, and economic status. Typically, the data are reported as the percentage distribution of students in a subgroup across achievement levels. These reports are issued at the state, district, and school levels. Additional outcome measures, such as data on attendance, dropout rates, and graduation rates, are also reported frequently. Individual states have adopted minimum group size reporting rules, with the minimum number of students ranging from 5 to 30 and a modal category of 10 (used by 39 states in the most recent results available on state websites in late winter of 2010). Each state has adopted additional practices to protect personally identifiable information about its students in reported results. These practices include various forms of suppression, top and bottom coding of values at the ends of a distribution, and limiting the amount of detail reported for the underlying counts. This Technical Brief includes a summary of key definitions, a brief discussion of background information, and a review and analysis of current practices to illustrate that some practices work better than others in protecting personally identifiable information reported from student education records. (Contains 15 tables and 6 footnotes.) For Technical Brief 2, "Data Stewardship: Managing Personally Identifiable Information in Electronic Student Education Records," see ED513095.]

Over the last decade, increased attention on education has led to an expansion in the amount of information on students and their schools and school districts reported to parents and the general public (20 U.S.C. Section 6311). States now report student outcomes based on assessments of student achievement in specific subjects and grade levels for all students, as well as for subgroups defined by gender, race and ethnicity, English proficiency status, migrant status, disability status, and economic status. Typically, the data are reported as the percentage distribution of students in a subgroup across achievement levels. These reports are issued at the state, district, and school levels. Additional outcome measures, such as data on attendance, dropout rates, and graduation rates, are also reported frequently. Individual states have adopted minimum group size reporting rules, with the minimum number of students ranging from 5 to 30 and a modal category of 10 (used by 39 states in the most recent results available on state websites in late winter of 2010). Each state has adopted additional practices to protect personally identifiable information about its students in reported results. These practices include various forms of suppression, top and bottom coding of values at the ends of a distribution, and limiting the amount of detail reported for the underlying counts. This Technical Brief includes a summary of key definitions, a brief discussion of background information, and a review and analysis of current practices to illustrate that some practices work better than others in protecting personally identifiable information reported from student education records. (Contains 15 tables and 6 footnotes.) For Technical Brief 2, "Data Stewardship: Managing Personally Identifiable Information in Electronic Student Education Records," see ED513095.]

MEMORANDUM FOR: Deputy Director for Operations AUG ;'5- VIA: Acting Deputy Director for Administration SFCRFT ? =tip= 6 93 Approved For Release 2007/11/05: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000801130021-4 ti/ W., / William F. Donnelly Director of Communications D 0V0VD%.1-: mxpanaea ux: xeporting or Technical Threat Information 1. Though OC has instituted numerous positive procedures to execute its responsibility delegated from the DCI for com- munications security, the expanding global hostile threat environment calls for additional countermeasures. To better fulfill its COMSEC mission, OC personnel will be called upon to expand their reporting of technical threat information. In addi- tion, threat. information affecting communications will be ana- lyzed and the threat enviro t will be evaluated on a continuing basis. Approved For Release 2007/11/05: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000801130021-4 . 9_4t FRE 25X1 25X1 Approved For Release 2007/11/05: CIA-RDP85B01152R000801130021-4 i SCs ? SUBJECT: Expanded OC Reporting of Technical Threat Information I 125X1 4. To better equip OC personnel to handle the above tasking, OC is in the process of expanding its security, investi- gative and counterintelligence methodology training of COMSEC officers and has launched a heightened threat awareness sen- sitization program of remaining OC personnel. William F. Donnelly C) /s/ James H. McDonald Acting Deputy Director for Administration SECRET 5AUG19 25X1 25X1 Approved For Release 2007/11/05: CIA-RDP85B01152R000801130021-4 Approved For Release 2007/11/05: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000801130021-4 z- 4 ROUTING AND TRANSMITTALTIP TO: (Name, office symbol, room number, building, Agency/Post) 7 V ,d 1. ,0 Initials Date 8 AUG 198: 2. At 4. Ion File Note and Return roi-al For Clearance Per Conversation s Requested For Correction Prepare Reply irculate For Your Information See Me mment Investigate Signature Coordination Justify DO NOT use this form as a RECORD of approvals, concurrences, disposals, clearances, and similar actions Room No.-Bldg. 5041-102 OPTIONAL FORM 41.(Rev. 7-76) Approved For Release 2007/11/05: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000801130021-4

MEMORANDUM FOR: Deputy Director for Operations AUG ;'5- VIA: Acting Deputy Director for Administration SFCRFT ? =tip= 6 93 Approved For Release 2007/11/05: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000801130021-4 ti/ W., / William F. Donnelly Director of Communications D 0V0VD%.1-: mxpanaea ux: xeporting or Technical Threat Information 1. Though OC has instituted numerous positive procedures to execute its responsibility delegated from the DCI for com- munications security, the expanding global hostile threat environment calls for additional countermeasures. To better fulfill its COMSEC mission, OC personnel will be called upon to expand their reporting of technical threat information. In addi- tion, threat. information affecting communications will be ana- lyzed and the threat enviro t will be evaluated on a continuing basis. Approved For Release 2007/11/05: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000801130021-4 . 9_4t FRE 25X1 25X1 Approved For Release 2007/11/05: CIA-RDP85B01152R000801130021-4 i SCs ? SUBJECT: Expanded OC Reporting of Technical Threat Information I 125X1 4. To better equip OC personnel to handle the above tasking, OC is in the process of expanding its security, investi- gative and counterintelligence methodology training of COMSEC officers and has launched a heightened threat awareness sen- sitization program of remaining OC personnel. William F. Donnelly C) /s/ James H. McDonald Acting Deputy Director for Administration SECRET 5AUG19 25X1 25X1 Approved For Release 2007/11/05: CIA-RDP85B01152R000801130021-4 Approved For Release 2007/11/05: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000801130021-4 z- 4 ROUTING AND TRANSMITTALTIP TO: (Name, office symbol, room number, building, Agency/Post) 7 V ,d 1. ,0 Initials Date 8 AUG 198: 2. At 4. Ion File Note and Return roi-al For Clearance Per Conversation s Requested For Correction Prepare Reply irculate For Your Information See Me mment Investigate Signature Coordination Justify DO NOT use this form as a RECORD of approvals, concurrences, disposals, clearances, and similar actions Room No.-Bldg. 5041-102 OPTIONAL FORM 41.(Rev. 7-76) Approved For Release 2007/11/05: CIA-RDP85BO1152R000801130021-4

Zoomable full resolution image available at davidrumsey.com . This image 14001.142 is a part of image group 14001.000 . 6 maps showing farms in Canada. Each map 15 x 32 cm. Maps include legends, charts and diagrams indicating percentage odistribution. Scale 1:20,000,000 or one inch to 315.6 miles. Lambert Conformal Conic Projection Standard Parallels 49˚N and 77˚N. [Date of map inferred based upon atlas data.] First edition was in 1906 (see our 1645.000); second edition 1915 (1646.000). The title page of this edition is dated 1957 but the Foreword is dated 1958, as well as the maps on plates 91, 99 and 110. Atlas contains 110 plates, comprising a total of 505 maps in color; additionally, these maps include 57 insets. Bound in pale green boards with burgundy lettering and spine, including spine title "Atlas Of Canada. 1957” in gilt. Loose-leaf binding allows both removal and insertion of individual maps. Inside front cover: Canadian made product by Copeland-Chatterson Limited, Brampton, Ontario. In the Foreword, Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys Paul Comtois explains, "Since the last Atlas of Canada appeared in 1915, the economy of Canada has expanded in all directions. The population of the country has doubled. Newfoundland has joined it as the tenth province, and scientific surveys have revealed to an ever increasing extent the physical nature of its land and water resources. It is, therefore, the purpose o this edition of the Atlas to present, in maps, an outline of the physical background and the economic development of the nation at mid-century and to show how these factors are interwoven to produce the fabric of the life of our people … " In the Preface, Director of Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, Geographical Branch, N.L. Nicholson continues, “ … the Atlas provides a logical story in maps which embraces historical, physical, human, economic and social and political geography. The story begins with the way in which Canada was explored and mapped. It goes on to show the basic aspects of the physical environment, such as relief and climate … “ Includes table of contents.

This technical assistance paper provides policy and guidance to individuals with test administration responsibilities in adult education programs. Rule 6A-6.014, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), titled, General Requirements for Adult General Education Programs, requires all adult education programs to report all student measurable educational gains and demographic information to Florida's reporting system. State policies outlined in this rule apply to the state-approved assessments that programs may use to report educational gains and are in compliance with both the state and National Reporting System (NRS) requirements. The NRS is the accountability system for the federally funded adult education program, mandated by the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA). There are three important reasons for creating a data-driven accountability system for adult education programs: (1) The U.S. Department of Education (USDOE) requires each state to establish and utilize performance measures for making continued funding decisions for federal grant programs. Furthermore, each state is expected to institute a system for program monitoring and continued technical assistance that is centered on program enrollment and performance. (2) The Florida Department of Education (FDOE) has enhanced its monitoring processes by instituting a data-driven system for determining program performance. (3) The FDOE program administrators can focus attention on establishing program performance targets and program improvement. To assist programs with student and program performance reporting and accountability, Florida's data reporting system and the NRS are uniform and compatible for measuring student's educational gains. Progress is measured in Literacy Completion Points (LCPs). The term, Literacy Completion Point, used by the state is synonymous with the federal term Measurable Skill Gain (MSG). LCPs are required to be reported to show gains and progression in Educational Functioning Levels (EFLs) for NRS. The Florida assessment policies and guidelines presented in this technical assessment paper are appropriate for state and federal reporting. Therefore, guidance and procedures regarding the selection and use of appropriate student assessment are included in this technical assistance paper. Additionally, the following important information for adult education programs is reviewed: (1) The definition of key terms and acronyms; (2) Selection of appropriate assessments by student and program type; (3) Appropriate student placement into program and instructional level; (3) Verification of student learning gains, Educational Functioning Level, and/or program completion; (4) Accommodations for students with disabilities and other special needs; (5) Assessment procedures for Distance Education; and (6) Training for all staff who administer the standardized assessments. [For the 2016-2017 version of this paper, see ED579162.]

This technical assistance paper provides policy and guidance to individuals with test administration responsibilities in adult education programs. Rule 6A-6.014, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), titled, General Requirements for Adult General Education Programs, requires all adult education programs to report all student measurable educational gains and demographic information to Florida's reporting system. State policies outlined in this rule apply to the state-approved assessments that programs may use to report educational gains and are in compliance with both the state and National Reporting System (NRS) requirements. The NRS is the accountability system for the federally funded adult education program, mandated by the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA). There are three important reasons for creating a data-driven accountability system for adult education programs: (1) The U.S. Department of Education (USDOE) requires each state to establish and utilize performance measures for making continued funding decisions for federal grant programs. Furthermore, each state is expected to institute a system for program monitoring and continued technical assistance that is centered on program enrollment and performance. (2) The Florida Department of Education (FDOE) has enhanced its monitoring processes by instituting a data-driven system for determining program performance. (3) The FDOE program administrators can focus attention on establishing program performance targets and program improvement. To assist programs with student and program performance reporting and accountability, Florida's data reporting system and the NRS are uniform and compatible for measuring student's educational gains. Progress is measured in Literacy Completion Points (LCPs). The term, Literacy Completion Point, used by the state is synonymous with the federal term Measurable Skill Gain (MSG). LCPs are required to be reported to show gains and progression in Educational Functioning Levels (EFLs) for NRS. The Florida assessment policies and guidelines presented in this technical assessment paper are appropriate for state and federal reporting. Therefore, guidance and procedures regarding the selection and use of appropriate student assessment are included in this technical assistance paper. Additionally, the following important information for adult education programs is reviewed: (1) The definition of key terms and acronyms; (2) Selection of appropriate assessments by student and program type; (3) Appropriate student placement into program and instructional level; (3) Verification of student learning gains, Educational Functioning Level, and/or program completion; (4) Accommodations for students with disabilities and other special needs; (5) Assessment procedures for Distance Education; and (6) Training for all staff who administer the standardized assessments. [For the 2016-2017 version of this paper, see ED579162.]

This technical assistance paper provides policy and guidance to individuals with test administration responsibilities in adult education programs. Rule 6A-6.014, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), titled, General Requirements for Adult General Education Programs, requires all adult education programs to report all student measurable educational gains and demographic information to Florida's reporting system. State policies outlined in this rule apply to the state-approved assessments that programs may use to report educational gains and are in compliance with both the state and National Reporting System (NRS) requirements. The NRS is the accountability system for the federally funded adult education program, mandated by the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA). There are three important reasons for creating a data-driven accountability system for adult education programs: (1) The U.S. Department of Education (USDOE) requires each state to establish and utilize performance measures for making continued funding decisions for federal grant programs. Furthermore, each state is expected to institute a system for program monitoring and continued technical assistance that is centered on program enrollment and performance. (2) The Florida Department of Education (FDOE) has enhanced its monitoring processes by instituting a data-driven system for determining program performance. (3) The FDOE program administrators can focus attention on establishing program performance targets and program improvement. To assist programs with student and program performance reporting and accountability, Florida's data reporting system and the NRS are uniform and compatible for measuring student's educational gains. Progress is measured in Literacy Completion Points (LCPs). The term, Literacy Completion Point, used by the state is synonymous with the federal term Measurable Skill Gain (MSG). LCPs are required to be reported to show gains and progression in Educational Functioning Levels (EFLs) for NRS. The Florida assessment policies and guidelines presented in this technical assessment paper are appropriate for state and federal reporting. Therefore, guidance and procedures regarding the selection and use of appropriate student assessment are included in this technical assistance paper. Additionally, the following important information for adult education programs is reviewed: (1) The definition of key terms and acronyms; (2) Selection of appropriate assessments by student and program type; (3) Appropriate student placement into program and instructional level; (3) Verification of student learning gains, Educational Functioning Level, and/or program completion; (4) Accommodations for students with disabilities and other special needs; (5) Assessment procedures for Distance Education; and (6) Training for all staff who administer the standardized assessments. [For the 2016-2017 version of this paper, see ED579162.]

This technical assistance paper provides policy and guidance to individuals with test administration responsibilities in adult education programs. Rule 6A-6.014, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), titled, General Requirements for Adult General Education Programs, requires all adult education programs to report all student measurable educational gains and demographic information to Florida's reporting system. State policies outlined in this rule apply to the state-approved assessments that programs may use to report educational gains and are in compliance with both the state and National Reporting System (NRS) requirements. The NRS is the accountability system for the federally funded adult education program, mandated by the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA). There are three important reasons for creating a data-driven accountability system for adult education programs: (1) The U.S. Department of Education (USDOE) requires each state to establish and utilize performance measures for making continued funding decisions for federal grant programs. Furthermore, each state is expected to institute a system for program monitoring and continued technical assistance that is centered on program enrollment and performance. (2) The Florida Department of Education (FDOE) has enhanced its monitoring processes by instituting a data-driven system for determining program performance. (3) The FDOE program administrators can focus attention on establishing program performance targets and program improvement. To assist programs with student and program performance reporting and accountability, Florida's data reporting system and the NRS are uniform and compatible for measuring student's educational gains. Progress is measured in Literacy Completion Points (LCPs). The term, Literacy Completion Point, used by the state is synonymous with the federal term Measurable Skill Gain (MSG). LCPs are required to be reported to show gains and progression in Educational Functioning Levels (EFLs) for NRS. The Florida assessment policies and guidelines presented in this technical assessment paper are appropriate for state and federal reporting. Therefore, guidance and procedures regarding the selection and use of appropriate student assessment are included in this technical assistance paper. Additionally, the following important information for adult education programs is reviewed: (1) The definition of key terms and acronyms; (2) Selection of appropriate assessments by student and program type; (3) Appropriate student placement into program and instructional level; (3) Verification of student learning gains, Educational Functioning Level, and/or program completion; (4) Accommodations for students with disabilities and other special needs; (5) Assessment procedures for Distance Education; and (6) Training for all staff who administer the standardized assessments. [For the 2016-2017 version of this paper, see ED579162.]

This is the twelfth annual report by the National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) analyzing public reporting of disaggregated assessment data for elementary and secondary students with disabilities in the United States. Reporting disaggregated performance data at the state and district level to the public is required of states by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA); the 2007-2008 school year marks the ninth annual reporting period since this requirement was established, and the sixth reporting period since the 2001 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). For the 2007-2008 school year, the number of regular states publicly reporting disaggregated data for both participation and performance for students with disabilities taking regular assessments fell from 46 to 45. Thirty-six states provided disaggregated participation and performance data for students with disabilities taking alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards (AA-AAS) for 2007-2008; this number remained the same as in 2006-2007. Reporting of regular assessments in the ESEA accountability system, by type, for regular states showed a pattern similar to 2006-2007, with 100% reporting participation and performance on norm-referenced tests (NRT), combination NRT and criterion-referenced tests (NRT/CRT), and exit exams (EXIT), but lower levels of reporting on the most common test type, CRTs. Although a greater number of CRTs were used, the percentage of those on which states reported fell from 89% to 85%. Reporting on regular assessments was provided by 49 regular states in 2007-2008, the same number as in 2006-2007. Reporting on AA-AAS was provided by 43 regular states in 2007-2008, down from 44 states in 2006-2007. For the unique states, four reported both participation and performance data for regular assessments. One unique state reported both participation and performance data for AA-AAS. The public reporting of participation and performance for 2007-2008 assessments was fairly consistent with the reporting in 2006-2007. There continues to be a need for states to report clearly, to publicly report on accommodations use, and to strive to make the data that are reported accessible to those who seek them via public Web sites. Appendices include: (1) Example Letter to Assessment Director; (2) Example Letter to Special Education Director; (3) Status of Disaggregated Data (Participation and Performance) for Students with Disabilities on Regular State Tests in the Fifty States and Unique States for 2007-2008; (4) Status of Disaggregated Data (Participation and Performance) for Students with Disabilities on State Alternates Based on Alternate Achievement Standards (AA-AAS) in the Fifty States and Unique States for 2007-2008; (5) Status of Disaggregated Data (Participation and Performance) for Students with Disabilities on Alternates Based on Modified Achievement Standards (MAS) in the Fifty States for 2007-08; (6) Disaggregated Participation Information for Students with Disabilities on Regular State Tests for the Fifty States and Unique States for 2007-2008; (7) Disaggregated Alternate Assessment Participation Information for Students with Disabilities on Regular State Tests for the Fifty States and Unique States for 2007-2008; (8) Disaggregated Regular Assessment Performance Information for Students with Disabilities for the Fifty States and Unique States for 2007-2008; (9) Disaggregated Alternate Assessment Performance Information for Students with Disabilities for the Fifty States and Unique States for 2007-2008; and (10) Participation and Performance for Students Tested with Accommodations for 2007-2008. (Contains 9 tables and 21 figures.)

This is the twelfth annual report by the National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) analyzing public reporting of disaggregated assessment data for elementary and secondary students with disabilities in the United States. Reporting disaggregated performance data at the state and district level to the public is required of states by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA); the 2007-2008 school year marks the ninth annual reporting period since this requirement was established, and the sixth reporting period since the 2001 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). For the 2007-2008 school year, the number of regular states publicly reporting disaggregated data for both participation and performance for students with disabilities taking regular assessments fell from 46 to 45. Thirty-six states provided disaggregated participation and performance data for students with disabilities taking alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards (AA-AAS) for 2007-2008; this number remained the same as in 2006-2007. Reporting of regular assessments in the ESEA accountability system, by type, for regular states showed a pattern similar to 2006-2007, with 100% reporting participation and performance on norm-referenced tests (NRT), combination NRT and criterion-referenced tests (NRT/CRT), and exit exams (EXIT), but lower levels of reporting on the most common test type, CRTs. Although a greater number of CRTs were used, the percentage of those on which states reported fell from 89% to 85%. Reporting on regular assessments was provided by 49 regular states in 2007-2008, the same number as in 2006-2007. Reporting on AA-AAS was provided by 43 regular states in 2007-2008, down from 44 states in 2006-2007. For the unique states, four reported both participation and performance data for regular assessments. One unique state reported both participation and performance data for AA-AAS. The public reporting of participation and performance for 2007-2008 assessments was fairly consistent with the reporting in 2006-2007. There continues to be a need for states to report clearly, to publicly report on accommodations use, and to strive to make the data that are reported accessible to those who seek them via public Web sites. Appendices include: (1) Example Letter to Assessment Director; (2) Example Letter to Special Education Director; (3) Status of Disaggregated Data (Participation and Performance) for Students with Disabilities on Regular State Tests in the Fifty States and Unique States for 2007-2008; (4) Status of Disaggregated Data (Participation and Performance) for Students with Disabilities on State Alternates Based on Alternate Achievement Standards (AA-AAS) in the Fifty States and Unique States for 2007-2008; (5) Status of Disaggregated Data (Participation and Performance) for Students with Disabilities on Alternates Based on Modified Achievement Standards (MAS) in the Fifty States for 2007-08; (6) Disaggregated Participation Information for Students with Disabilities on Regular State Tests for the Fifty States and Unique States for 2007-2008; (7) Disaggregated Alternate Assessment Participation Information for Students with Disabilities on Regular State Tests for the Fifty States and Unique States for 2007-2008; (8) Disaggregated Regular Assessment Performance Information for Students with Disabilities for the Fifty States and Unique States for 2007-2008; (9) Disaggregated Alternate Assessment Performance Information for Students with Disabilities for the Fifty States and Unique States for 2007-2008; and (10) Participation and Performance for Students Tested with Accommodations for 2007-2008. (Contains 9 tables and 21 figures.)

Zoomable full resolution image available at davidrumsey.com . This image 14001.141 is a part of image group 14001.000 . Verso of (68) Farms. First edition was in 1906 (see our 1645.000); second edition 1915 (1646.000). The title page of this edition is dated 1957 but the Foreword is dated 1958, as well as the maps on plates 91, 99 and 110. Atlas contains 110 plates, comprising a total of 505 maps in color; additionally, these maps include 57 insets. Bound in pale green boards with burgundy lettering and spine, including spine title "Atlas Of Canada. 1957” in gilt. Loose-leaf binding allows both removal and insertion of individual maps. Inside front cover: Canadian made product by Copeland-Chatterson Limited, Brampton, Ontario. In the Foreword, Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys Paul Comtois explains, "Since the last Atlas of Canada appeared in 1915, the economy of Canada has expanded in all directions. The population of the country has doubled. Newfoundland has joined it as the tenth province, and scientific surveys have revealed to an ever increasing extent the physical nature of its land and water resources. It is, therefore, the purpose o this edition of the Atlas to present, in maps, an outline of the physical background and the economic development of the nation at mid-century and to show how these factors are interwoven to produce the fabric of the life of our people … " In the Preface, Director of Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, Geographical Branch, N.L. Nicholson continues, “ … the Atlas provides a logical story in maps which embraces historical, physical, human, economic and social and political geography. The story begins with the way in which Canada was explored and mapped. It goes on to show the basic aspects of the physical environment, such as relief and climate … “ Includes table of contents.

The West Virginia Higher Education Report Card 2013 is the sixth in a revised series of accountability reports. Both the Higher Education Policy Commission and the Community and Technical College System are required by state code to report on system-wide progress toward achieving state postsecondary education objectives. This report continues to build from the foundation set by the 2008 Report Card, reporting the most recently available information, as well as regional and national comparisons when they are available. The report is divided into three major sections. The first is an overarching state section that addresses outcomes that apply to all of postsecondary education, not just the individual sectors of the Higher Education Policy Commission or the Community and Technical College System. This section demonstrates the state's progress in student academic preparation for and enrollment in college, all postsecondary degrees awarded, and the financial aid available to assist students in paying for college. The second section of the Report Card is specific to the Higher Education Policy Commission and its constituent baccalaureate-granting (and above) institutions. The indicators in this section are based on the goals set forth in "Charting the Future 2007-2012, a Master Plan for Higher Education." The indicators in this report card are divided into focal areas consistent with the master plan: economic growth, access, cost and affordability, learning and accountability and innovation. Report Card 2013 will be the last document in the series to address goals from "Charting the Future," as the Commission implements its new five-year master plan "Leading the Way: Access. Success. Impact." The third section of the Report Card reflects the progress of the Community and Technical College System of West Virginia toward meeting the goals set forth in the system's master plan entitled "Meeting the Challenge: 2010-2015." The CTCS section of the Report Card highlights specific imperatives set forth by the master plan. Areas of emphasis include a focus on student success, degree completion, and workforce development efforts.

Young people are entering college at increasingly higher rates, yet many are under-prepared for the academic challenges they encounter. Educators and policy makers are calling for increased educational opportunities that prepare all students for the rigors of postsecondary education. Accelerated learning opportunities foster smoother and more successful transitions from high school to college while allowing students to earn dual credit (a course or program where high school students can earn both high school and postsecondary credit for the same course). Accelerated learning opportunities can: (1) Prepare students for the challenges of college through a rigorous high school curriculum; (2) Engage seniors by offering interesting, challenging and college credit-bearing courses; (3) Provide students with skills and experiences to ensure student success in transition to college and credential acquisition; (4) Reduce students' college tuition expenditures and shorten the time to degree completion; and (5) Increase communication, collaboration, and curricular alignment between secondary and postsecondary systems. Beginning as early as the 1960s, Oregon educators have been bridging K-12 and postsecondary education through accelerated learning options. A variety of credit options are offered in Oregon including: (1) Advanced Placement (AP); (2) International Baccalaureate (IB); (3) Dual credit; (4) Expanded Options; (5) Career and Technical Education (CTE) Programs of Study; and (6) Tech Prep. This publication reports from the National Center for Educational Statistics, 2005; and presents information reflecting national trends which are supported by the findings in the Oregon Dual Credit Study of 2010. Currently there are 17 community colleges and four Oregon university system institutions that offer dual credit options. Postsecondary institutions review high school courses for content, continuity, and college-level appropriateness. Accelerated curriculum & college credit programs are presented in table form and arranged according to the following column headings: Program title, State Program, Program Standards, Federal National International Program, Authority, Funding, Location, Transcripted Credits, Data Reporting Venue, and Cost to Students. Contact information for programs is provided.

Young people are entering college at increasingly higher rates, yet many are under-prepared for the academic challenges they encounter. Educators and policy makers are calling for increased educational opportunities that prepare all students for the rigors of postsecondary education. Accelerated learning opportunities foster smoother and more successful transitions from high school to college while allowing students to earn dual credit (a course or program where high school students can earn both high school and postsecondary credit for the same course). Accelerated learning opportunities can: (1) Prepare students for the challenges of college through a rigorous high school curriculum; (2) Engage seniors by offering interesting, challenging and college credit-bearing courses; (3) Provide students with skills and experiences to ensure student success in transition to college and credential acquisition; (4) Reduce students' college tuition expenditures and shorten the time to degree completion; and (5) Increase communication, collaboration, and curricular alignment between secondary and postsecondary systems. Beginning as early as the 1960s, Oregon educators have been bridging K-12 and postsecondary education through accelerated learning options. A variety of credit options are offered in Oregon including: (1) Advanced Placement (AP); (2) International Baccalaureate (IB); (3) Dual credit; (4) Expanded Options; (5) Career and Technical Education (CTE) Programs of Study; and (6) Tech Prep. This publication reports from the National Center for Educational Statistics, 2005; and presents information reflecting national trends which are supported by the findings in the Oregon Dual Credit Study of 2010. Currently there are 17 community colleges and four Oregon university system institutions that offer dual credit options. Postsecondary institutions review high school courses for content, continuity, and college-level appropriateness. Accelerated curriculum & college credit programs are presented in table form and arranged according to the following column headings: Program title, State Program, Program Standards, Federal National International Program, Authority, Funding, Location, Transcripted Credits, Data Reporting Venue, and Cost to Students. Contact information for programs is provided.

Young people are entering college at increasingly higher rates, yet many are under-prepared for the academic challenges they encounter. Educators and policy makers are calling for increased educational opportunities that prepare all students for the rigors of postsecondary education. Accelerated learning opportunities foster smoother and more successful transitions from high school to college while allowing students to earn dual credit (a course or program where high school students can earn both high school and postsecondary credit for the same course). Accelerated learning opportunities can: (1) Prepare students for the challenges of college through a rigorous high school curriculum; (2) Engage seniors by offering interesting, challenging and college credit-bearing courses; (3) Provide students with skills and experiences to ensure student success in transition to college and credential acquisition; (4) Reduce students' college tuition expenditures and shorten the time to degree completion; and (5) Increase communication, collaboration, and curricular alignment between secondary and postsecondary systems. Beginning as early as the 1960s, Oregon educators have been bridging K-12 and postsecondary education through accelerated learning options. A variety of credit options are offered in Oregon including: (1) Advanced Placement (AP); (2) International Baccalaureate (IB); (3) Dual credit; (4) Expanded Options; (5) Career and Technical Education (CTE) Programs of Study; and (6) Tech Prep. This publication reports from the National Center for Educational Statistics, 2005; and presents information reflecting national trends which are supported by the findings in the Oregon Dual Credit Study of 2010. Currently there are 17 community colleges and four Oregon university system institutions that offer dual credit options. Postsecondary institutions review high school courses for content, continuity, and college-level appropriateness. Accelerated curriculum & college credit programs are presented in table form and arranged according to the following column headings: Program title, State Program, Program Standards, Federal National International Program, Authority, Funding, Location, Transcripted Credits, Data Reporting Venue, and Cost to Students. Contact information for programs is provided.

Young people are entering college at increasingly higher rates, yet many are under-prepared for the academic challenges they encounter. Educators and policy makers are calling for increased educational opportunities that prepare all students for the rigors of postsecondary education. Accelerated learning opportunities foster smoother and more successful transitions from high school to college while allowing students to earn dual credit (a course or program where high school students can earn both high school and postsecondary credit for the same course). Accelerated learning opportunities can: (1) Prepare students for the challenges of college through a rigorous high school curriculum; (2) Engage seniors by offering interesting, challenging and college credit-bearing courses; (3) Provide students with skills and experiences to ensure student success in transition to college and credential acquisition; (4) Reduce students' college tuition expenditures and shorten the time to degree completion; and (5) Increase communication, collaboration, and curricular alignment between secondary and postsecondary systems. Beginning as early as the 1960s, Oregon educators have been bridging K-12 and postsecondary education through accelerated learning options. A variety of credit options are offered in Oregon including: (1) Advanced Placement (AP); (2) International Baccalaureate (IB); (3) Dual credit; (4) Expanded Options; (5) Career and Technical Education (CTE) Programs of Study; and (6) Tech Prep. This publication reports from the National Center for Educational Statistics, 2005; and presents information reflecting national trends which are supported by the findings in the Oregon Dual Credit Study of 2010. Currently there are 17 community colleges and four Oregon university system institutions that offer dual credit options. Postsecondary institutions review high school courses for content, continuity, and college-level appropriateness. Accelerated curriculum & college credit programs are presented in table form and arranged according to the following column headings: Program title, State Program, Program Standards, Federal National International Program, Authority, Funding, Location, Transcripted Credits, Data Reporting Venue, and Cost to Students. Contact information for programs is provided.

Young people are entering college at increasingly higher rates, yet many are under-prepared for the academic challenges they encounter. Educators and policy makers are calling for increased educational opportunities that prepare all students for the rigors of postsecondary education. Accelerated learning opportunities foster smoother and more successful transitions from high school to college while allowing students to earn dual credit (a course or program where high school students can earn both high school and postsecondary credit for the same course). Accelerated learning opportunities can: (1) Prepare students for the challenges of college through a rigorous high school curriculum; (2) Engage seniors by offering interesting, challenging and college credit-bearing courses; (3) Provide students with skills and experiences to ensure student success in transition to college and credential acquisition; (4) Reduce students' college tuition expenditures and shorten the time to degree completion; and (5) Increase communication, collaboration, and curricular alignment between secondary and postsecondary systems. Beginning as early as the 1960s, Oregon educators have been bridging K-12 and postsecondary education through accelerated learning options. A variety of credit options are offered in Oregon including: (1) Advanced Placement (AP); (2) International Baccalaureate (IB); (3) Dual credit; (4) Expanded Options; (5) Career and Technical Education (CTE) Programs of Study; and (6) Tech Prep. This publication reports from the National Center for Educational Statistics, 2005; and presents information reflecting national trends which are supported by the findings in the Oregon Dual Credit Study of 2010. Currently there are 17 community colleges and four Oregon university system institutions that offer dual credit options. Postsecondary institutions review high school courses for content, continuity, and college-level appropriateness. Accelerated curriculum & college credit programs are presented in table form and arranged according to the following column headings: Program title, State Program, Program Standards, Federal National International Program, Authority, Funding, Location, Transcripted Credits, Data Reporting Venue, and Cost to Students. Contact information for programs is provided.

A new, more flexible policy for so-called Digital Network Intelligence will cut back on narrow restrictions and unclear definitions. It also aims to streamline the reporting process by limiting the use of ORCON (Originator Controlled) dissemination control markings.