Search

The 2019 edition of the "Digest of Education Statistics" is the 55th in a series of publications initiated in 1962. The purpose of the "Digest" is to provide a compilation of statistical information covering the broad field of American education from prekindergarten through graduate school. It contains data on a variety of topics, including the number of schools and colleges, teachers, enrollments, and graduates, in addition to educational attainment, finances, and federal funds for education, libraries, and international comparisons. Seven chapters are included: (1) All Levels of Education; (2) Elementary and Secondary Education; (3) Postsecondary Education; (4) Federal Funds for Education and Related Activities; (5) Outcomes of Education; (6) International Comparisons of Education; and (7) Libraries and Use of Technology. Each chapter is divided into a number of topical subsections. Preceding the seven chapters is an introduction that provides a brief overview of current trends in American education, which supplements the tabular materials in chapters 1 through 7. The "Digest" concludes with two appendixes. The first appendix, Guide to Sources, provides a brief synopsis of the surveys used to generate the "Digest" tables; the second, Definitions, is included to help readers understand terms used in the "Digest." [For "Digest of Education Statistics 2018, 54th Edition. NCES 2020-009," see ED601992.]

This report uses statistics to examine current conditions and changes over time in education activities and outcomes for different racial/ethnic groups in the United States. The indicators in this report show that some traditionally disadvantaged racial/ethnic groups have made strides in educational achievement, but that gaps still persist. The primary focus of this report is to examine differences in educational participation and attainment of students in the racial/ethnic groups of White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, American Indian/Alaska Native, and Two or more races. The secondary focus of this report is to illustrate the changing demographics in the United States. Measuring population growth and diversity is important for anticipating the needs of schools and teachers. This report shows that over time, students in these racial/ethnic groups have completed high school and continued their education in college in increasing numbers. Despite these gains, the rate of progress has varied among these racial/ethnic groups and differences by race/ethnicity persist in terms of increases in attainment and progress on key indicators of educational performance. It uses the most recent data available and reports on demographics, preprimary, elementary, and secondary education participation, student achievement, student behaviors and persistence, postsecondary education, and outcomes of education.

The nation's schools should be safe havens for teaching and learning, free of crime and violence. Any instance of crime or violence at school not only affects the individuals involved, but also may disrupt the educational process and affect bystanders, the school itself, and the surrounding community. Establishing reliable indicators of the current state of school crime and safety across the nation and regularly updating and monitoring these indicators are important in ensuring the safety of our nation's students. This is the aim of "Indicators of School Crime and Safety." This report is the 19th in a series of annual publications produced jointly by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Institute of Education Sciences (IES), in the U.S. Department of Education, and the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) in the U.S. Department of Justice. This report presents the most recent data available on school crime and student safety. The indicators in this report are based on information drawn from a variety of data sources, including national surveys of students, teachers, principals, and postsecondary institutions. The information presented in this report serves as a reference for policymakers and practitioners so that they can develop effective programs and policies aimed at violence and school crime prevention. Accurate information about the nature, extent, and scope of the problem being addressed is essential for developing effective programs and policies. This report covers topics such as victimization, teacher injury, bullying and cyber-bullying, school conditions, fights, weapons, availability and student use of drugs and alcohol, student perceptions of personal safety at school, and criminal incidents at postsecondary institutions. Indicators of crime and safety are compared across different population subgroups and over time. Data on crimes that occur away from school are offered as a point of comparison where available. The following are appended: (1) Technical Notes; and (2) Glossary of Terms. Supplemental tables are included. [For the previous report: "Indicators of School Crime: 2015. NCES 2016-079/NCJ 249758," see ED565704.]

Our nation's schools should be safe havens for teaching and learning, free of crime and violence. Any instance of crime or violence at school not only affects the individuals involved, but also may disrupt the educational process and affect bystanders, the school itself, and the surrounding community (Brookmeyer, Fanti, and Henrich 2006; Goldstein, Young, and Boyd 2008). Establishing reliable indicators of the current state of school crime and safety across the nation and regularly updating and monitoring these indicators are important in ensuring the safety of our nation's students. This is the aim of "Indicators of School Crime and Safety." This report is the eighteenth in a series of annual publications produced jointly by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Institute of Education Sciences (IES), in the U.S. Department of Education, and the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) in the U.S. Department of Justice. This report presents the most recent data available on school crime and student safety. The indicators in this report are based on information drawn from a variety of data sources, including national surveys of students, teachers, principals, and postsecondary institutions. Sources include results from the School-Associated Violent Deaths Study, sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education, the Department of Justice, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); the National Crime Victimization Survey and School Crime Supplement to that survey, sponsored by BJS and NCES, respectively; the Youth Risk Behavior Survey, sponsored by the CDC; the Schools and Staffing Survey, School Survey on Crime and Safety, Fast Response Survey System, EDFacts, and High School Longitudinal Study of 2009, all sponsored by NCES; the Supplementary Homicide Reports, sponsored by the Federal Bureau of Investigation; the Campus Safety and Security Survey and Civil Rights Data Collection, both sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education; and the Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement, sponsored by the U.S. Department of Justice. The most recent data collection for each indicator varied by survey, from 2009 to 2014. Each data source has an independent sample design, data collection method, and questionnaire design, or is the result of a universe data collection. Findings described in this report with comparative language (e.g., higher, lower, increase, and decrease) are statistically significant at the 0.05 level. This report covers topics such as victimization, teacher injury, bullying and cyber-bullying, school conditions, fights, weapons, availability and student use of drugs and alcohol, student perceptions of personal safety at school, and criminal incidents at postsecondary institutions. Indicators of crime and safety are compared across different population subgroups and over time. Data on crimes that occur away from school are offered as a point of comparison where available. Preliminary data show that there were 53 school associated violent deaths from July 1, 2012, through June 30, 2013. (Indicator 1). In 2014, among students ages 12-18, there were about 850,100 nonfatal victimizations at school, which included 363,700 theft victimizations and 486,400 violent victimizations (simple assault and serious violent victimizations.) (Indicator 2). During the 2013-14 school year, there were 1.3 million reported discipline incidents in the United States for reasons related to alcohol, drugs, violence, or weapons possession that resulted in a student being removed from the education setting for at least an entire school day. (Indicator 19). Of the 781 total hate crimes reported on college campuses in 2013, the most common type of hate crime reported by institutions was destruction, damage, and vandalism (364 incidents), followed by intimidation (295 incidents) and simple assault (89 incidents; Indicator 23). Additional information about methodology and the datasets analyzed in this report may be found in appendix A. A Glossary of terms is also included in appendix B. [For the previous report: "Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2014. NCES 2015-072/NCJ 248036," see ED557756.]

Our nation's schools should be safe havens for teaching and learning, free of crime and violence. Any instance of crime or violence at school not only affects the individuals involved, but also may disrupt the educational process and affect bystanders, the school itself, and the surrounding community (Brookmeyer, Fanti, and Henrich 2006; Goldstein, Young, and Boyd 2008). Establishing reliable indicators of the current state of school crime and safety across the nation and regularly updating and monitoring these indicators are important in ensuring the safety of our nation's students. This is the aim of "Indicators of School Crime and Safety." This report is the seventeenth in a series of annual publications produced jointly by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Institute of Education Sciences (IES) in the U.S. Department of Education, and the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) in the U.S. Department of Justice. This report presents the most recent data available on school crime and student safety. The indicators in this report are based on information drawn from a variety of data sources, including national surveys of students, teachers, principals, and postsecondary institutions. Sources include results from the School-Associated Violent Deaths Study, sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education, the Department of Justice, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); the National Crime Victimization Survey and School Crime Supplement to that survey, sponsored by BJS and NCES, respectively; the Youth Risk Behavior Survey, sponsored by the CDC; the Schools and Staffing Survey and School Survey on Crime and Safety, both sponsored by NCES; the Supplementary Homicide Reports, sponsored by the Federal Bureau of Investigation; EDFacts, sponsored by NCES; and the Campus Safety and Security Survey, sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education. The most recent data collection for each indicator varied by survey, from 2009 to 2013. Each data source has an independent sample design, data collection method, and questionnaire design, or is the result of a universe data collection. All comparisons described in this report are statistically significant at the 0.05 level. This report covers topics such as victimization, teacher injury, bullying and cyber-bullying, school conditions, fights, weapons, availability and student use of drugs and alcohol, student perceptions of personal safety at school, and criminal incidents at postsecondary institutions. Indicators of crime and safety are compared across different population subgroups and over time. Data on crimes that occur away from school are offered as a point of comparison where available. Preliminary data show that there were 45 school associated violent deaths from July 1, 2011, through June 30, 2012. (Indicator 1). In 2013, among students ages 12-18, there were about 1,420,900 nonfatal victimizations at school,2 which included 454,900 theft victimizations and 966,000 violent victimizations (simple assault and serious violent victimizations). (Indicator 2). Out of 791 total hate crimes reported on college campuses in 2012, the most common type of hate crime reported by institutions was destruction, damage, and vandalism (412 incidents), followed by intimidation (261 incidents), simple assault (79 incidents), aggravated assault (14 incidents), larceny (11 incidents), robbery (5 incidents), burglary (5 incidents), and forcible sex offenses (4 incidents; Indicator 23). Additional information about methodology and the datasets analyzed in this report may be found in appendix A. A Glossary of terms is also included in appendix B. [For the previous report: "Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2013. NCES 2014-042/NCJ 243299," see ED545223.]

The increasing number of privately owned vehicles in large metropolitan cities has contributed to traffic congestion, increased energy waste, raised CO2 emissions, and impacted our living conditions negatively. Analysis of data representing citizens' driving behavior can provide insights to reverse these conditions. This article presents a large-scale driving status and trajectory dataset consisting of 426,992,602 records collected from 68,069 vehicles over a month. From the dataset, we analyze the driving behavior and produce random distributions of trip duration and millage to characterize car trips. We have found that a private car has more than 17% probability to make four trips per day, and a trip has more than 25% probability to last 20-30 minutes and 33% probability to travel 10 Kilometers during the trip. The collective distributions of trip mileage and duration follow Weibull distribution, whereas the hourly trips follow the well known diurnal pattern and so the hourly fuel efficiency. Based on these findings, we have developed an application which recommends the drivers to find the nearby gas stations and possible favorite places from past trips. We further highlight that our dataset can be applied for developing dynamic Green maps for fuel-efficient routing, modeling efficient Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V) communications, verifying existing V2V protocols, and understanding user behavior in driving their private cars. © 2019 IEEE.

Chinese multinational enterprises are facing almost continuous negative media coverage in many Western countries, given the rising geopolitical tensions between the China and the West. This thesis aims to scrutinize this phenomenon to examine why and how Chinese multinationals are suffering from negative media coverage, and how firms can deal with such challenges when facing geopolitical complexities. To examine the phenomenon of interest, this thesis takes a cross-disciplinary approach by combining the subjects of international business, mass communication, and international relations. The research problem that this thesis aims to address is: How can Chinese multinationals interpret and respond to media-framed legitimacy challenges when facing intensive geopolitical tensions? This research problem leads the author to develop three concrete research questions: How are liabilities of origin framed by the media, thereby posing legitimacy challenges for Chinese multinationals? How are the voices of different stakeholders framed by the media in constructing the legitimacy of Chinese multinationals? How can Chinese multinationals form voice strategies to mitigate legitimacy challenges in the geopolitical context? The research design in this thesis contains three independent yet related studies in dealing with the general research problem. The first case study focuses on the legitimacy challenges of Huawei in the UK. The second case study focuses on the legitimacy challenges of TikTok in the US. The third study supplements the previous two case studies and explores Chinese multinationals’ voice strategies through semi-structured interviews with public relations managers. This thesis extends knowledge and makes contributions to three theoretical gaps regarding multinationals’ legitimacy challenges in the geopolitical rivalry, media framing of multinationals’ legitimacy, and multinationals’ voice strategies as part of the nonmarket strategy. Besides, it responds to the call

Chinese multinational enterprises are facing almost continuous negative media coverage in many Western countries, given the rising geopolitical tensions between the China and the West. This thesis aims to scrutinize this phenomenon to examine why and how Chinese multinationals are suffering from negative media coverage, and how firms can deal with such challenges when facing geopolitical complexities. To examine the phenomenon of interest, this thesis takes a cross-disciplinary approach by combining the subjects of international business, mass communication, and international relations. The research problem that this thesis aims to address is: How can Chinese multinationals interpret and respond to media-framed legitimacy challenges when facing intensive geopolitical tensions? This research problem leads the author to develop three concrete research questions: How are liabilities of origin framed by the media, thereby posing legitimacy challenges for Chinese multinationals? How are the voices of different stakeholders framed by the media in constructing the legitimacy of Chinese multinationals? How can Chinese multinationals form voice strategies to mitigate legitimacy challenges in the geopolitical context? The research design in this thesis contains three independent yet related studies in dealing with the general research problem. The first case study focuses on the legitimacy challenges of Huawei in the UK. The second case study focuses on the legitimacy challenges of TikTok in the US. The third study supplements the previous two case studies and explores Chinese multinationals’ voice strategies through semi-structured interviews with public relations managers. This thesis extends knowledge and makes contributions to three theoretical gaps regarding multinationals’ legitimacy challenges in the geopolitical rivalry, media framing of multinationals’ legitimacy, and multinationals’ voice strategies as part of the nonmarket strategy. Besides, it responds to the call