Your search found 4504 results.

Descriptors:
Academic Achievement; Teacher Effectiveness; Elementary School Students; Grade 5; Teacher Persistence; Faculty Mobility; Elementary School Teachers; Labor Turnover; Teacher Influence; Language Arts; Reading Achievement; Mathematics Achievement; Scores; Racial Differences; Low Achievement; Grade 4; Urban Schools; At Risk Students; Minority Group Students; Observation

Abstract:
Researchers and policymakers often assume that teacher turnover harms student achievement, though recent studies suggest this may not be the case. Using a unique identification strategy that employs school-by-grade level turnover and two classes of fixed-effects models, this study estimates the effects of teacher turnover on over 850,000 New York City fourth- and fifth-grade student observations over 8 years. The results indicate that students in grade levels with higher turnover score lower in both English language arts (ELA) and math and that these effects are particularly strong in schools with more low-performing and Black students. Moreover, the results suggest that there is a disruptive effect of turnover beyond changing the distribution in teacher quality. (Contains 3 figures, 17 tables, and 16 notes.) 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:
Educational Change; Urban Areas; Low Achievement; Grade 9; At Risk Students; Educational Improvement; Student Needs; Identification; Intervention; High Schools; Program Effectiveness; Educational Indicators; Dropout Prevention; Graduation Rate; Student Characteristics; Gender Differences; Racial Differences; Student Mobility; Reading Achievement; Mathematics Achievement; Age Differences; Socioeconomic Status; Grade Point Average

Abstract:
Chicago has been in the forefront of the country in its use of 9th-grade indicators of dropout. Catalyzed by the development of the freshman on-track indicator and research around it, Chicago school administrators, central office personnel, and external partners have developed a number of mechanisms using 9th-grade indicators to stimulate school improvement. This article describes 3 ways in which early warning indicators are useful for improving student achievement: (a) focusing conversations and efforts on actionable problems; (b) identifying students for intervention; and (c) using indicator patterns to address low performance in a strategic way. Examples from high schools in Chicago suggest that knowledge of the on-track indicator and its use in district accountability were not enough to change practice. However, the availability of data tools that make it easy to act on information about on-track rates have changed the ways in which teachers and school staff interact with each other, students, and parents regarding improving student performance. The strategies they have developed with the data tools have provided a systematic focus to their efforts, which appears to be paying off in substantially improved ninth-grade achievement. (Contains 1 table, 4 figures, and 11 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:
Academic Achievement; Achievement Tests; Elementary School Students; Numeracy; Foreign Countries; Child Health; Lighting; Educational History; Socioeconomic Status; Literacy; Developing Nations; Educational Attainment; Low Achievement; Nutrition; Attendance; Childrens Literature; Family Environment; Educational Policy

Abstract:
One of the eight Millennium Development Goals is that all children in developing countries should complete primary education. Much progress has been made toward this goal, but completing primary school does not ensure that students attain basic literacy and numeracy skills. Indeed, there is ample evidence that many children in developing countries are not learning these basic skills. This raises the question: What can schools and communities do to increase the learning that takes place in schools? Sri Lanka exemplifies these issues. It has achieved universal primary completion, but many Sri Lankan primary school students perform poorly on academic tests. This paper uses unusually rich data from Sri Lanka to investigate the determinants of academic performance, as measured by achievement tests, of Grade 4 students. At the child and household level, educated parents, better nutrition, high daily attendance, enrollment in private tutoring classes, exercise books, electric lighting, and children's books at home all appear to increase learning, while hearing problems have a strong negative effect. Among school variables, principals' and teachers' years of experience, collaborating with other schools in a "school family," and meetings between parents and teachers all appear to have positive impacts on students' scores. Estimates that exclude some of the variables available in the unusually rich data yield different results, which suggests that results based on less complete data are likely to suffer from omitted variable bias. A final section provides recommendations for education policies in Sri Lanka. (Contains 10 tables and 21 notes.) 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:
Disabilities; Evidence; Outcome Measures; Emotional Disturbances; Response to Intervention; Reliability; Graduation Rate; Low Achievement; Interpersonal Relationship; Educational Legislation; Federal Legislation; Program Implementation; Learning Disabilities; Screening Tests; Outcomes of Treatment; Incidence; Rating Scales

Abstract:
Outcomes for students classified as emotionally disturbed (ED) are among the poorest for any disability group and include disturbingly low graduation rates, poor academic achievement, high rates of school suspensions and school dropouts, and chronic interpersonal problems. Additionally, these students are often underserved within the school setting with an overall prevalence rate of less than one percent. This underservice may be partially due to the definition of ED provided in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA, 2004), which is vague, contradictory, and redundant. Additionally, IDEA does not provide guidelines for how to assess for ED, thus, assessment procedures and prevalence rates widely differ by state. We propose the use of a Response to Intervention (RTI) model for the assessment and treatment of students with ED. Within an RTI model, students are provided evidence-based interventions implemented with integrity, and their response to these interventions is continuously monitored. This article defines RTI and describes methods of screening, assessment, treatment, and outcome evaluation for ED within the model. 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:
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 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)

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:
This State-specific summary report serves as an assessment of North Carolina'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. In Year 2, North Carolina continued the progress it made in Year 1 in all areas of its comprehensive reform plan and reached several implementation milestones. North Carolina made progress in implementing a qualifying evaluation system for teachers and principals by modifying its existing statewide evaluation system, the North Carolina Educator Evaluation System (NCEES). The State also continued to prepare its educators to fully implement the updated North Carolina Standard Course of Study in SY 2012-2013 by providing professional development and disseminating curricular materials. Delays impacted several of the State's Race to the Top initiatives. The Instructional Improvement System (IIS) and Virtual Blended STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) Courses projects were delayed in order to refine project plans and requirements and as a result of lengthy procurement processes; these projects now have condensed implementation timeframes. The State's extensive Year 2 preparations laid the groundwork for full implementation of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and NCEES in Year 3. The State's comprehensive professional development offerings, including more than 90 regional face-to-face sessions and online resources, will support educators as they implement these and other key initiatives. North Carolina will also continue to support teacher and leader pipelines through its Regional Leadership Academies, Distinguished Leadership in Practice program, Teach For America partnership, and the North Carolina Teacher Corps. North Carolina will continue to build readiness in the field for and begin implementing components of its two major technology initiatives, the Cloud and Home Base. A glossary is included. (Contains 9 footnotes.) [For "Race to the Top. North Carolina. Year 1: School Year 2010-2011. [State-Specific Summary Report]," see ED529322.] 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 (1373K)

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 New York'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. New York completed its first year of transition to the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), encouraging educators to implement at least one CCSS-aligned unit each semester. It field tested items that it will use on CCSS-aligned Year 3 assessments and provided curricular documents through the EngageNY.org website, including thirteen LEA-developed exemplar curriculum modules. New York struggled to stay on track with timeframes in its approved Race to the Top plan in Year 2. The State made numerous adjustments to timelines and approach to account for delays and other issues, which are described in further detail in this report and in the approved amendment letters posted on the Department's website. By the end of its Year 2 budget period, June 30, 2012, the State reported expenditures totaling 7.59 percent of its Race to the Top grant. The slow pace of spending is reflective of delays in the work, and indicative of the accelerated pace that will be required for New York to complete key grant activities prior to the end of the grant period. In Year 3, all New York local educational agencies (LEAs) will implement new teacher and principal evaluation systems. The State's grades three through eight (3-8) English language arts (ELA) and mathematics assessments will reflect the CCSS. In school year (SY) 2012-2013, the State has asked high school teachers to implement two CCSS units each semester. In SY 2013-2014, the State's Algebra I, Geometry, and English high school Regents exams will reflect the CCSS. In SY 2014-2015, the State's Algebra II high school Regents exam will reflect the CCSS. New York State Education Department (NYSED) and LEAs will continue to develop curricular materials to support effective implementation. NYSED plans to launch the EDP and release EngageNY.org 2.0, an upgraded version of the current EngageNY.org website. Nine new clinically-rich graduate teacher preparation programs will join the two programs that launched in Year 2. A glossary is included. (Contains 8 footnotes.) [For "Race to the Top. New York Report. Year 1: School Year 2010-2011. [State-Specific Summary Report]," see ED529326.] 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 (1454K)

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)