Your search found 7 results.

Descriptors:
State Programs; State Departments of Education; Decision Making; Data; Information Utilization; Educational Policy; Educational Practices; Local Issues; Educational Finance; Politics of Education; Human Resources

Abstract:
This report documents how four state education agencies are supporting local data-driven decisionmaking through their policies, practices, and programs for creating data systems, improving data access and use, and building district and school capacity to use data. Responding to District of Columbia Office of State Superintendent of Education and Pennsylvania Department of Education requests, this report describes how Arkansas, Florida, Texas, and Virginia are supporting local data-driven decisionmaking. Statewide policies, practices, and programs for creating data systems, improving access to data, and building district and school capacity to use the data are documented. [For the full report, see ED526134.] 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 (296K)

Descriptors:
Data; Decision Making; Educational Policy; Educational Practices; State Departments of Education; Educational Finance; Politics of Education; Human Resources; Information Utilization; Local Issues; State Programs

Abstract:
This report documents how four state education agencies are supporting local data-driven decisionmaking through their policies, practices, and programs for creating data systems, improving data access and use, and building district and school capacity to use data. Specifically, this report, responding to District of Columbia Office of State Superintendent of Education and Pennsylvania Department of Education requests, describes how Arkansas, Florida, Texas, and Virginia are supporting local data-driven decisionmaking. Two questions guide this study: (1) What policies or practices in Arkansas, Florida, Texas, and Virginia support local use of data for education purposes; and (2) How do Arkansas, Florida, Texas, and Virginia support local use of data in selected state education agency-administered programs? This study found that the four states have implemented a range of policies and practices in all three categories of the study's analytical framework: (1) Creating, expanding, and linking data systems. The four states have created and built state repositories and are expanding the types of data collected and warehoused to better equip districts and schools to rigorously assess whether students, schools, and districts are meeting state college readiness requirements and career readiness expectations. (2) Ensuring data access and use. The four states have implemented policies and practices to help local educators and administrators access, understand, and use data effectively. In doing so, they are making data and analyses timely, readily available, and easy to understand for parents, educators, and policymakers. (3) Building district and school capacity to use data. The four states have focused on strengthening local human resource capability, mainly through partnerships and professional development. By building local capacity to access and analyze data stored in state longitudinal data systems, the states intend to help local policymakers and practitioners use data inform key policy questions on performance and improvement. In addition to state policies, the study also identified five state programs supporting district and school use of data (one in Florida, two in Texas, and two in Virginia). Appended are: (1) Summaries of studies with strong findings on state education agency support for local data-driven decisionmaking; and (2) Study methods. (Contains 3 boxes, 2 figures, 3 tables, and 7 notes.) [For the Summary Report, see ED526135] 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 (521K)

Descriptors:
Student Attitudes; Mathematics Achievement; Geometry; Computer Uses in Education; Educational Technology; High School Students; Urban Schools; Comparative Analysis; Pretests Posttests; Attitude Change; Observation; Interviews; Teaching Methods; Student Centered Curriculum; Computer Software; Cognitive Processes

Abstract:
This randomized, controlled field trial estimated the causal impact of a technology-based geometry curriculum on students' geometry achievement, as well as their attitudes toward mathematics and technology. The curriculum combines learner-centered classroom pedagogy with individualized, computer-based student instruction. Conducted over a 3-year period in eight high schools within an urban fringe district, the study found that students assigned to the treatment curriculum scored 19% of a standard deviation lower on the geometry posttest than their counterparts assigned to the district's standard curriculum, but found no statistically significant impact on students' attitudes toward mathematics and technology. Researchers also collected observation and interview data on teachers' instructional practices. These data suggest that many teachers had difficulty implementing the treatment curriculum's learner-centered pedagogy. In fact, observed levels of learner-centered practices were only modestly higher in treatment classes than in control classes. In both treatment and control classes, however, higher levels of learner-centered pedagogy were associated with higher student achievement in geometry. (Contains 4 figures, 10 footnotes, and 5 tables.) 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:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Geometry; Secondary School Science; Mathematics Instruction; High School Students; Mathematics Achievement; Instructional Effectiveness

Abstract:
This study aims to help address a need for information about efficacious mathematics curriculum and instruction at the high school level. Data from national and international studies, including the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), show very low mathematics proficiency rates for high school students. Many educators recognize a need to improve mathematics achievement through interventions such as new curriculum materials or instructional approaches, however they lack rigorous evidence on efficacy. By providing such information, this study can help guide educators in selecting the most promising materials. The purpose of the study is to evaluate the efficacy of the Cognitive Tutor Geometry curriculum by Carnegie Learning Inc., using randomized controlled trials. 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 (14K)

Descriptors:
Learning Theories; Focus Groups; Educational Change; Educational Improvement; Improvement Programs; Consultation Programs; Consultants; Change Strategies; Partnerships in Education; Professional Services; Case Studies; School Districts; Training Methods; Theory Practice Relationship

Abstract:
Districts across the country face significant demands to strengthen student learning districtwide, and many are turning to intermediary organizations to help them build their capacity for such demanding, large-scale work. However, how these "learning-support intermediary organizations" assist with these capacity-building efforts is little understood. This article reports data from a largely qualitative investigation into how one such intermediary organization, the Institute for Learning (IFL) at the University of Pittsburgh, partnered with multiple urban districts to help build district capacity for districtwide learning improvements. Our conceptual framework draws on sociocultural learning theory to identify key features of the IFL-district assistance relationships that seem associated with these outcomes. We utilized data from interviews, observations, document reviews, and focus groups conducted over a five-year period. Findings elaborate specific features of their assistance relationships--which we call adaptive assistance relationships--such as enabling particular forms of modeling, tools, and opportunities for rich dialogue. We conclude with implications for the research and practice of districtwide learning improvement efforts and the participation of intermediary organizations in the process. (Contains 2 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:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Federal Legislation; Instructional Leadership; Urban Schools; Educational Improvement; Principals; Accountability; Educational Change; School Districts; Partnerships in Education; Professional Development; Teacher Improvement

Abstract:
The current high-stakes accountability environment brought on by the federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) places great pressure on school districts to demonstrate success by meeting yearly progress goals for student achievement and eventually demonstrating that all students achieve at high standards. In particular, many urban school districts--with their high-poverty and low-achieving student population and constraints due to insufficient human, physical, and financial resources and high rates of turnover in school and district staff--face great challenges in meeting these goals. In fall 2002, the RAND Corporation initiated a study to analyze three urban districts' efforts to face these challenges and improve the instructional quality and performance of their schools. The study also sought to assess the contribution to these efforts made by an intermediary organization, the Institute for Learning (IFL). District reform efforts in four areas were closely examined: (1) promoting the instructional leadership of principals; (2) supporting the professional learning of teachers, in particular through school-based coaching models; (3) specifying curriculum; (4) and promoting data-based decision making for planning and instructional improvement. Also examined was the impact of the IFL on these instructional improvement efforts. This monograph presents findings from that three-year study. It describes the districts' work in each area of reform, identifies common constraints and enablers of district success, assesses the nature and impact of district-intermediary partnerships, and makes recommendations for districts undertaking similar instructional reforms. 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:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Instructional Improvement; Educational Change; Educational Strategies; Improvement Programs; Instructional Effectiveness; Change Strategies; Research and Instruction Units; Barriers; Performance Factors; Partnerships in Education; Effective Schools Research

Abstract:
Improving school systems is critical to bridging the achievement gap and achieving federal accountability goals. Research in three urban districts partnered with a university-based intermediary organization sheds light on promising instructional reform strategies and challenges to bringing about systemwide change. Analyses of district efforts to promote the instructional leadership of principals, support teacher learning through school-based coaches, specify curriculum, and promote data-based decisionmaking identify common factors constraining and enabling instructional improvement. The research also shows that third-party organizations can help facilitate policy alignment and build the capacity of district staff to lead instructional change. [This research brief describes work documented in "The Role of Districts in Fostering Instructional Improvement: Lessons from Three Urban Districts Partnered with the Institute for Learning," by Julie A. Marsh, Kerri A. Kerr, Gina Ikemoto, Hilary Darilek, Marika Suttorp, Ron W. Zimmer, and Heather Barney.] 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:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  Publisher's website