Your search found 311722 results.

Descriptors:
School Administration; Student Characteristics; Educational Finance; School Effectiveness; Elementary Secondary Education; Electronic Learning; Virtual Classrooms; Race; Ethnicity; Economically Disadvantaged; Special Education; English Language Learners; Enrollment; Income; Expenditures; Cost Effectiveness; Educational Indicators; Federal Programs; Reading Achievement; Mathematics Achievement; Graduation Rate; School Holding Power

Abstract:
K12 Inc. enrolls more public school students than any other private education management organization in the U.S. Much has been written about K12 Inc. (referred to in this report simply as "K12") by financial analysts and investigative journalists because it is a large, publicly traded company and is the dominant player in the operation and expansion of full-time virtual schools. This report provides a new perspective on the nation's largest virtual school provider through a systematic review and analysis of student characteristics, school finance, and school performance of K12-operated schools. Using federal and state data, this report provides a description of the students served by K12 and the public revenues received and spent by the company at the school level. Further, the report presents evidence from a range of school performance measures and strives to understand and explain the overall weak performance of these virtual schools. While the authors share the excitement of new technologies and the potential these have to improve communication, teacher effectiveness, and learning, they recommend that policymakers move forward cautiously and only after piloting and thoroughly vetting new ideas. The authors express hope that their findings will help inform policymakers and motivate researchers to carefully study various aspects of full-time virtual schools. They conclude that a better understanding of virtual schools can serve to improve this new model and help ensure that full-time virtual schools can better serve students and the public as a whole. Appended are: (1) Demographic Characteristics of Students Enrolled in K12 Schools, 2010-11; (2) Details on Publicly Reported Revenues and Expenditures for Schools Operated by K12 Inc., 2008-09; (3) State Performance Ratings, Adequate Yearly Progress Status, and Reasons for Not Meeting AYP; (4) Performance of K12 Schools on State Reading Assessments, 2010-11; (5) Performance of K12 Schools on State Math Assessments, 2010-11; and (6) Questions about Online Learning for Policymakers and School Leaders from the Center for Public Education Study. (Contains 14 figures, 6 tables, 83 notes and references, and 1 footnote.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (1760K)

Descriptors:
General Education; Educational Finance; Public Schools; Funding Formulas; Change Strategies; Educational Change; Educational Policy; Policy Analysis; Educational Resources; Resource Allocation; Organizational Change; Finance Reform; Program Implementation; Expenditures; Educational Indicators; Educational Assessment; Expenditure per Student; Statistical Distributions; Performance Factors; Barriers; Foreign Countries

Abstract:
There is no fixed rule about how financial resources must be directed to the education sector. It is quite clear that the size of investment in the sector well defines the quality of education students are offered. It is highly important to define the amount of money, which is needed for effective functioning of schools and it is also important to define the system of actions, which will support the functional use of those financial resources. In relation to the above-mentioned, the aim of our study is to analyse general education funding during the post-reform period and based on it to show those problems, which, in spite of the significant rise in funding, arouse as a result of implementing a new system and its further change. Data sets for the research project were taken from the Ministry of Education and Science of Georgia, National Statistics Department of Georgia and directly from public schools. The object of study is all public schools in Georgia, and the period of data gathering is from 2005 till 2011. The rational for conducting the study is due to the necessity: the new funding system for the general education schools drastically changed general education finance model. Although, a number of schools fallen under so called deficit school category in the first year of implementation of the new funding system. Period more than 1300 public schools (out of 2180) had shortages in the budget. In 2011 a new, mixed type of funding model was introduced, schools with up to 160 students were funded using so-called need based approach. Under the new funding model schools with student population from 161 to 599 receive base funds. Even though this approach has worked well in terms of eradicating deficits, a number of essential problems were originated. In the paper, the authors present some conclusions and recommendations on how to solve the existing problems and how to improve the financing model in the future; one of the most important conclusions is that voucher funding scheme couldn't manage to accomplish general education funding goals relating fairness, adequacy and effectiveness. This will only be possible (a recommendation), if expenditure on education as a share of GDP increases by at least 4.5-5% (it was 2.3 in 2011). Shifting to the formula funding is among the recommendations; it will guarantee: balance between the regions, stability, comparability, forecast and it will raise the quality of transparency. (Contains 14 tables and 4 figures.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (703K)

Descriptors:
Expenditures; School Districts; Public Schools; School Statistics; State Departments of Education; Income; Federal Aid; Educational Finance; School District Size; Charter Schools; Tables (Data); Elementary Secondary Education; Expenditure per Student; Enrollment; Instruction; Pupil Personnel Services

Abstract:
This report presents data from the School District Finance Survey (F-33) of the Common Core of Data (CCD) survey system for school year (SY) 2009-10, fiscal year 2010 (FY 10). The F-33 is a district-level financial survey that consists of data submitted annually to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) and the Governments Division of the U.S. Census Bureau (Census Bureau) by state education agencies (SEAs) in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The purpose of this report is to introduce new data through the presentation of tables containing descriptive information; therefore, the selected findings chosen for this report demonstrate the range of information available when using the F-33 component of CCD. The selected findings do not represent a complete review of all observed differences in the data and are not meant to emphasize any particular issue. This report presents findings on public education revenues and expenditures at the local education agency (LEA) level using FY 10 provisional data from the F-33 of the CCD survey system. This First Look provides users with an opportunity to access provisional F-33 data that have been fully reviewed, edited, and imputed. Final data, including revisions to the provisional data submitted by the SEAs after the close of data collection, will be available during the following collection year. Appended are: (1) Methodology and Technical Notes; (2) Common Core of Data Glossary; and (3) Reference Tables. (Contains 11 tables and 4 footnotes.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (1651K)

Descriptors:
Early Childhood Education; Elementary Secondary Education; Higher Education; Enrollment; Age; Educational Finance; Public Schools; Expenditures; Expenditure per Student; Outcomes of Education; Income; Education Work Relationship; Educational Attainment; Gender Differences

Abstract:
Education plays a fundamental role in American society. This paper takes a look at school enrollment, costs and educational outcomes. How does school enrollment today compare with 1970, when the baby boom generation was in its prime years of school attendance (age 6 to 24) and made up 90 percent of all students enrolled in school? What do people earn with a college degree? How much does one spend on schools? The American Community and other Census Bureau surveys provide information to answer these and other valuable questions. Education statistics are vital to communities in determining funding allocations and guiding program planning. Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (634K)

Descriptors:
Academic Achievement; Academic Standards; Accountability; Achievement Gap; Administrator Effectiveness; Alignment (Education); Budgets; Career Readiness; Charter Schools; College Readiness; Core Curriculum; Data; Educational Assessment; Educational Change; Educational Improvement; Elementary Secondary Education; Federal Legislation; Formative Evaluation; Grants; Higher Education; Language Arts; Leadership Effectiveness; Literacy; Low Achievement; Mathematics Achievement; Measurement Objectives; Models; Outcomes of Education; Partnerships in Education; Poverty; Principals; Professional Development; Program Effectiveness; Program Implementation; School Districts; School Effectiveness; School Turnaround; State Government; State Standards; STEM Education; Teacher Effectiveness; Teacher Evaluation

Abstract:
This State-specific summary report serves as an assessment of Tennessee's second year of Race to the Top implementation. The report highlights successes and accomplishments, identifies challenges, and provides lessons learned from implementation from approximately September 2011 through September 2012. During Year 2, the Tennessee Department of Education (TDOE) revamped its approach to project management to ensure meaningful project oversight and revised project work plans and goals that focus on measuring project performance and impact at the State educational agency (SEA) level. The State also participated in partnership meetings with local educational agencies (LEAs) to build relationships focused on data and collaborative problem solving. These meetings reinforced the State's goal of transitioning from compliance monitoring to a more collaborative role as LEAs implemented their Race to the Top plans. Although Tennessee made excellent progress in Year 2, it still faced challenges as it rolled out the Tennessee Educator Acceleration Model (TEAM) and the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), built data systems to support instruction, and expanded its science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) network. Moving into Year 3 of its grant, Tennessee plans to build on its accomplishments and address its challenges from Year 2. The State is reassessing its implementation plans in several reform areas to ensure continuous improvement and effective implementation. For example, the State is making changes to its educator evaluation system to address feedback from teachers and principals. In addition, TDOE is enhancing its existing Field Service Centers (FSCs) to provide content-specific supports to LEAs and schools. The FSCs will now be called Centers of Regional Excellence (COREs) and will leverage the existing strengths of FSCs and add additional capacities to provide support to LEAs as they implement the CCSS and the new evaluation system. The State's plans for Years 3 and 4 rely heavily on effective CORE implementation, highlighting the need for the State to establish high-quality centers and mechanisms to assess their effectiveness. A glossary is included. (Contains 20 footnotes.) [For "Race to the Top. Tennessee Report. Year 1: School Year 2010-2011. [State-Specific Summary Report]," see ED529330.] Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (1550K)

Descriptors:
Academic Achievement; Academic Standards; Accountability; Achievement Gap; Administrator Effectiveness; Alignment (Education); Budgets; Career Readiness; Charter Schools; College Readiness; Core Curriculum; Data; Educational Assessment; Educational Change; Educational Improvement; Elementary Secondary Education; Federal Legislation; Formative Evaluation; Grants; Higher Education; Language Arts; Leadership Effectiveness; Literacy; Low Achievement; Mathematics Achievement; Measurement Objectives; Models; Outcomes of Education; Partnerships in Education; Poverty; Principals; Professional Development; Program Effectiveness; Program Implementation; School Districts; School Effectiveness; School Turnaround; State Government; State Standards; STEM Education; Teacher Effectiveness; Teacher Evaluation

Abstract:
This State-specific summary report serves as an assessment of Ohio's Year 2 Race to the Top implementation, highlighting successes and accomplishments, identifying challenges, and providing lessons learned from implementation from approximately September 2011 through September 2012. During Year 2, Ohio built on its Year 1 successes. In its transition to the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), the State created a high school and IHE committee to align college and career standards with colleges' and universities' entrance requirements. To improve educator data access and allow the State to track students once they exit the kindergarten through twelfth grade (K-12) system, the State worked with an external vendor to assign statewide student identifiers (SSIDs) to all high school seniors and freshmen attending State public IHEs (institutions of higher education). The State also created structures to ensure that participating local educational agencies (LEAs) receive frequent Race to the Top updates. During Year 2 Ohio faced some difficulty aligning ODE (Ohio Department of Education) and OBR (Ohio Board of Regents) efforts, as well as developing comprehensive contractor oversight processes. In addition, the State grappled with how to provide support to non-traditional persistently lowest-achieving (PLA) schools, namely community and virtual schools. Ohio continues to focus on ways to ensure sustainability of its Race to the Top reforms and high levels of LEA engagement. During Year 3, Ohio plans to assess and revise its structures to ensure quality implementation of all of its projects. As part of this work, Ohio developed an expanded statewide engagement strategy for educators and other stakeholders such as the general public and policymakers. In addition, Ohio plans to reevaluate its curriculum and assessment resources, as well as how LEA professional development plans are submitted, reviewed, and approved. Finally, in Year 3, participating LEAs will pilot or implement the Ohio Teacher Evaluation System (OTES) and the Ohio Principal Evaluation System (OPES) to support full implementation of both systems no later than SY 2013-2014. A glossary is included. (Contains 18 footnotes.) [For "Race to the Top. Ohio Report. Year 1: School Year 2010-2011. [State-Specific Summary Report]," see ED529325.] Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (1444K)

Descriptors:
Academic Achievement; Academic Standards; Accountability; Achievement Gap; Administrator Effectiveness; Alignment (Education); Budgets; Career Readiness; Charter Schools; College Readiness; Core Curriculum; Data; Educational Assessment; Educational Change; Educational Improvement; Elementary Secondary Education; Federal Legislation; Formative Evaluation; Grants; Higher Education; Language Arts; Leadership Effectiveness; Literacy; Low Achievement; Mathematics Achievement; Measurement Objectives; Models; Outcomes of Education; Partnerships in Education; Poverty; Principals; Professional Development; Program Effectiveness; Program Implementation; School Districts; School Effectiveness; School Turnaround; State Government; State Standards; STEM Education; Teacher Effectiveness; Teacher Evaluation

Abstract:
The State-specific summary report serves as an assessment of Massachusetts' Year 2 Race to the Top implementation, highlighting successes and accomplishments, identifying challenges, and providing lessons learned from implementation from approximately September 2011 through September 2012. In Year 2, Massachusetts continued to implement strong systems to track progress of projects, assess risk, and provide support of project implementation as needed. The State fully implemented project management structures through the Delivery approach, which regularly assesses project progress and identifies potential problems based on predetermined goals and objectives. The Delivery process allows for a candid assessment of project risks and timely application of action plans for projects that may be getting off track. The State demonstrated a strong understanding of its progress and the areas that required additional support. Additionally, the State proactively collaborated with key stakeholders throughout the development of major components of its Race to the Top reform efforts, which resulted in greater buy-in from educators during implementation. While Massachusetts has put concerted time and resources into efforts to implement the schools interoperability framework (SIF) in order to improve the data collection process, there continued to be significant delays in this project. The State fell short of meeting its performance measure for this project for the first two years of the grant. In SY 2011-2012, the State reported that 100 percent of local educational agencies (LEAs) implemented the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), which are incorporated into the Massachusetts Curriculum Framework for English Language Arts and the Massachusetts Curriculum Framework for Mathematics. LEAs faced challenges finalizing local collective bargaining agreements in time to prepare for implementation of educator evaluation systems in SY 2012-2013. The State reported in October 2012 that 88 of the 236 participating LEAs had ESE-approved evaluation system plans that align with the State's regulations. Massachusetts plans to fully implement the 2011 Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks, which incorporate the CCSS, in Year 3. In addition, all Race to the Top participating LEAs will implement new educator evaluation systems. The State will continue to develop data systems and curricular materials that support these initiatives and will provide further guidance to LEAs as they roll out their new curricula and evaluations. A glossary is included. (Contains 11 footnotes.) [For "Race to the Top. Massachusetts Report. Year 1: School Year 2010-2011. [State-Specific Summary Report]," see ED529318. Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (1467K)

Descriptors:
Academic Achievement; Academic Standards; Accountability; Achievement Gap; Administrator Effectiveness; Alignment (Education); Budgets; Career Readiness; Charter Schools; College Readiness; Core Curriculum; Data; Educational Assessment; Educational Change; Educational Improvement; Elementary Secondary Education; Federal Legislation; Formative Evaluation; Grants; Higher Education; Language Arts; Leadership Effectiveness; Literacy; Low Achievement; Mathematics Achievement; Measurement Objectives; Models; Outcomes of Education; Partnerships in Education; Poverty; Principals; Professional Development; Program Effectiveness; Program Implementation; School Districts; School Effectiveness; School Turnaround; State Government; State Standards; STEM Education; Teacher Effectiveness; Teacher Evaluation

Abstract:
This State-specific summary report serves as an assessment of Hawaii's Year 2 Race to the Top implementation, highlighting successes and accomplishments, identifying challenges, and providing lessons learned from implementation from approximately September 2011 through September 2012. During Year 2, Hawaii worked to revise its Race to the Top plan to align with approved amendments and accelerate its forward trajectory in response to the Department placing the State's grant on high-risk status. The Hawaii Department of Education (HIDOE) central office reorganized in January 2012, drafted a new Strategic Plan, and revised program-specific communications plans. In March 2012, HIDOE began planning and training to establish Academic Review Teams (ARTs) in each Complex Area and school for SY 2012-2013. While the State took several steps in the right direction following its designation as a high-risk grantee, Hawaii continues to face challenges and delays. HIDOE developed a new strategic plan, which delayed the creation of metrics to measure progress against the Race to the Top plan and the strategic plan at the State, Complex Area, and school levels. In addition, after a one-year delay, the State is only in the beginning phases of creating systematic structures and processes to gather information about implementation from schools and Complex Areas. Now called Academic Review Teams (ARTs), these structures have additional importance in the Zones of School Innovation (ZSI) where HIDOE is piloting many new strategies. In Year 3, Hawaii will make routine new performance management and monitoring processes, as well as changes to its communications plan. The State will continue its transition to the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) by vetting curricular materials to inform statewide purchases, providing job-embedded professional development for all teachers, and monitoring CCSS implementation using new tools. The State will also pilot a new principal evaluation system. Finally, under a one-year supplemental agreement, students in the ZSI will benefit from extended learning time and educators will have additional professional development days. A glossary is included. (Contains 7 footnotes.) [For "Race to the Top. Hawaii Report. Year 1: School Year 2010-2011. [State-Specific Summary Report]," see ED529316.] Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (1295K)

Descriptors:
Academic Achievement; Academic Standards; Accountability; Achievement Gap; Administrator Effectiveness; Alignment (Education); Budgets; Career Readiness; Charter Schools; College Readiness; Core Curriculum; Data; Educational Assessment; Educational Change; Educational Improvement; Elementary Secondary Education; Federal Legislation; Formative Evaluation; Grants; Higher Education; Language Arts; Leadership Effectiveness; Literacy; Low Achievement; Mathematics Achievement; Measurement Objectives; Models; Outcomes of Education; Partnerships in Education; Poverty; Principals; Professional Development; Program Effectiveness; Program Implementation; School Districts; School Effectiveness; School Turnaround; State Government; State Standards; STEM Education; Teacher Effectiveness; Teacher Evaluation

Abstract:
This State-specific summary report serves as an assessment of Delaware's Year 2 Race to the Top implementation, highlighting successes and accomplishments, identifying challenges, and providing lessons learned from implementation from approximately September 2011 through September 2012. Despite some implementation challenges and delays during the second year of the grant, Delaware has made significant strides toward accomplishing its Race to the Top goals. Delaware Department of Education's (DDOE's) performance management processes improved the quality of the State's implementation of its plans in Year 2. DDOE provided support to its local educational agencies (LEAs) to assist them in developing and implementing their Race to the Top plans. Developing student growth measures for non-tested grades and subjects proved more challenging than anticipated, requiring the State to delay full implementation of Delaware Performance Appraisal System II (DPAS II) for one year from school year (SY) 2011-2012 to SY 2012-2013. This delay affected other areas and projects that depend on teacher effectiveness ratings, such as Human Capital Analytics and the Talent Transfer Initiative. In Year 3, Delaware plans on fully implementing DPAS II and incorporating student growth measures for teachers of non-tested grades and subjects. It will fully implement the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and college readiness programs including the Middle School Preparation Program. The Education Insight Portal will be available to all educators, as well as principals, district administrators, and DDOE staff. Delaware will continue to strive for continuous improvement by refining its programs based on educator feedback and its project management processes. A glossary is included. (Contains 9 footnotes.) [For "Race to the Top. Delaware Report. Year 1: School Year 2010-2011. [State-Specific Summary Report]," see ED529310.] Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (1463K)

Descriptors:
Academic Achievement; Academic Standards; Accountability; Achievement Gap; Administrator Effectiveness; Alignment (Education); Budgets; Career Readiness; Charter Schools; College Readiness; Core Curriculum; Data; Educational Assessment; Educational Change; Educational Improvement; Elementary Secondary Education; Federal Legislation; Formative Evaluation; Grants; Higher Education; Language Arts; Leadership Effectiveness; Literacy; Low Achievement; Mathematics Achievement; Measurement Objectives; Models; Outcomes of Education; Partnerships in Education; Poverty; Principals; Professional Development; Program Effectiveness; Program Implementation; School Districts; School Effectiveness; School Turnaround; State Government; State Standards; STEM Education; Teacher Effectiveness; Teacher Evaluation

Abstract:
This State-specific summary report serves as an assessment of Rhode Island's Year 2 Race to the Top implementation, highlighting successes and accomplishments, identifying challenges, and providing lessons learned from implementation from approximately September 2011 through September 2012. In Year 2, Rhode Island Department of Education (RIDE) and local educational agencies (LEAs) created curricular resources to assist educators in transitioning to the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), including 10 model curricula in core subjects. RIDE exceeded its goal of training 4,100 educators on CCSS; 5,800 educators attended Study of the Standards sessions during the first two years of Race to the Top implementation. Additionally, the State developed four modules to train educators in formative assessment practices and piloted these modules in six schools in SY 2011-2012. Although RIDE exceeded its CCSS training goals, it is unclear whether all LEAs will be ready to fully implement the CCSS by SY 2013-2014, particularly those LEAs that did not participate in the State's curricular development work. RIDE made revisions to the educator evaluation system to increase the weight of the Student Learning Objectives (SLOs) component, a change that will require RIDE to provide additional support to ensure that educators and LEAs implement SLOs rigorously and consistently. According to the State's Race to the Top plan, in Year 3 Rhode Island will continue to support LEAs and improve its Race to the Top program oversight and monitoring through EdStat and the CLO process. LEAs will take critical steps toward implementing the CCSS by developing CCSS-aligned units of study for use in classrooms. In addition, LEAs will fully implement new educator evaluation systems that use student growth data, differentiate educators into performance levels, and suggest professional growth supports for educators. The State will also take steps toward rewarding effective educators by developing and piloting new compensation structures. Additionally, it will place more educators certified through alternative routes in schools and will continue its efforts to transform persistently lowest-achieving (PLA) schools through interventions and support. A glossary is included. (Contains 5 footnotes.) [For "Race to the Top. Rhode Island Report. Year 1: School Year 2010-2011. [State-Specific Summary Report]," see ED529328.] Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (1533K)