Your search found 3366 results.

Descriptors:
Testing; Best Practices; Testing Problems; Integrity; Cheating; Prevention; Investigations; Educational Policy; Computer Assisted Testing; Conferences (Gatherings); State Departments of Education; School Districts

Abstract:
Educators, parents, and the public depend on accurate, valid, reliable, and timely information about student academic performance. Testing irregularities--breaches of test security or improper administration of academic testing--undermine efforts to use those data to improve student achievement. Unfortunately, there have been high-profile and systemic incidents of cheating in several school districts across the country in recent years. While every state has policies in place to address test administration, no "library of best practices" exists that could help state educational agencies (SEAs) and local educational agencies (LEAs) prevent, detect, and respond to irregularities in academic testing. The Department published a request for information (RFI) in the "Federal Register" on January 17, 2012, asking the public to submit best practices and policies regarding the prevention, detection, and investigation of irregularities in academic testing. This report draws upon three sources of information about practices that support the integrity of test results: the opinions of experts and practitioners as expressed in the RFI responses, the comments and discussions from the Symposium, and, where available, policy manuals or professional standards published by SEAs and professional associations. The RFI and Symposium are part of a broader effort by the Department to identify and disseminate practices and policies to SEAs, LEAs, and the testing companies that can assist them in their continuing efforts to improve the validity and reliability of assessment results. As was the case with the RFI and the Symposium, this summary focuses on four areas related to testing integrity: (1) the prevention of irregularities in academic testing; (2) the detection and analysis of testing irregularities; (3) the response to an investigation of alleged and/or actual misconduct; and (4) testing integrity practices for technology-based assessments. Appended are: (1) Testing Integrity Symposium Panelist Biographies; and (2) Request for Information (RFI) Responses. (Contains 101 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 (367K)

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:
Partnerships in Education; Evidence; Comprehensive Programs; Sustainability; State Departments of Education; Qualitative Research; Longitudinal Studies; Performance Factors; Integrated Services; Change Strategies; Educational Change; Community Role; Family Role; Phenomenology; Semi Structured Interviews; Focus Groups; Program Implementation; Leadership Effectiveness; Educational Policy

Abstract:
This study draws from 4 years of qualitative case study data to describe how programmatic and district factors interacted to affect reform sustainability in two school districts--one urban and the other suburban. These districts have been implementing a reform developed by the National Network of Partnership Schools (NNPS) for over a decade. NNPS assists schools, districts, and state departments of education to develop comprehensive programs of school, family, and community partnerships. Findings suggest that reform characteristics, specifically the evidence base, costs, and flexibility of the NNPS reform, and district leadership, specifically district leaders' reform knowledge, professional influence, and reform focus converged to explain, in part, the case districts' success in sustaining the reform. Implications of these findings for reform developers and leaders are discussed. (Contains 1 table.) 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:
Reading Achievement; Scoring; Student Behavior; Curriculum Based Assessment; Fidelity; State Departments of Education; School Districts; Behavior Problems; Behavior Modification; Special Education; Special Needs Students; Academic Achievement; Models; Program Implementation; Scores; Reading Programs; Leadership Responsibility; Student Needs

Abstract:
This brief is intended to provide State Education Agency (SEA) and Local Education Agency (LEA) educators with a brief overview of key components of Michigan's Integrated Behavior and Learning Support Initiative (MiBLSi), a project designed to help schools develop schoolwide support systems in reading and behavior. The MiBLSi is helping districts and schools improve both student behavior and academic performance. Additionally, participating schools are showing, on average, 21% reductions in special education referrals and 26% reductions in identification rates, particularly between the first and second years of implementation. Data has confirmed that, when schools implement the model with fidelity, they are more likely to experience improvements in academic and behavioral outcomes. As disruptive behavior decreases, schools are free to address instructional needs, resulting in increased reading achievement. Additional data from participating Michigan schools, indicates that: (1) 10% average reduction in the rate of major discipline referrals per year; (2) 3% average reduction each year of students requiring intensive reading supports; (3) 7% more students meeting or exceeding standards on Michigan Education Assessment Program reading component based on a sampling of schools that implement positive behavior support with fidelity; and (4) 5% increase (average) each year in students scoring at grade level based on Curriculum-Based Measurement reading assessments. (Contains 4 resources.) [This Spotlight Brief is developed by the Student Performance and Achievement Priority Team and the Systems and Improvement Planning Priority Team. For "Spotlight on: GraduateFIRST. Spotlight Briefs. Volume I," see ED539851.] 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 (1083K)

Descriptors:
Educational Policy; Grants; School Districts; Expertise; State Departments of Education; Case Studies; Comparative Analysis; Measures (Individuals); Competition; Educational Change; Teacher Evaluation; Program Implementation; Web Sites; Financial Support; Interviews

Abstract:
The Obama administration's Race to the Top competitive grant program initiated an unprecedented wave of state teacher-evaluation reform across the country. To date, most of the scholarly analysis of this activity has focused on the design of the evaluation instruments or the implementation of the new evaluations by districts and schools. But little research has explored how "states" are managing and supporting the implementation of these reforms. This paper offers an assessment of how early adopter states' departments of education have undertaken the preparation and implementation of new evaluation systems. It also identifies challenges and lessons that can be used to guide future reform efforts in this area. This assessment of the activities of state departments of education is based on comparative case studies of six states: Colorado, Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Tennessee. These particular states were selected because they are "early adopters" in the area of teacher-evaluation reform and because their states and/or education agencies have undertaken different approaches to implementing the reforms. Two of the states--Tennessee and Delaware--were initial Race to the Top winners, while the other states won smaller grants in later rounds. Research consisted of a review of the scholarly and think tank research on state education agency capacity and teacher-evaluation systems; analysis of reports and data from the state education departments' websites and from organizations such as the Council of Chief State School Officers; a study of media coverage of the reform efforts in the six states; and 15 interviews with national experts on teacher-evaluation reforms and state education agency and local education agency staff in each state. Interviews are appended. (Contains 48 endnotes.) 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 (1563K)

Descriptors:
Public Education; Preschool Education; Elementary Secondary Education; National Programs; Data Collection; Special Education; School Statistics; Information Dissemination; State Departments of Education; Educational Administration; Federal Government; State Government; Public Officials; Public Policy; Educational Research; Educational Researchers; Educational Policy; News Media; Citizen Participation; Educational Finance; National Surveys; School Surveys; Enrollment; Average Daily Attendance

Abstract:
This documentation is for the revised file (Version 1b) of the National Center for Education Statistics' (NCES) Common Core of Data (CCD) National Public Education Financial Survey (NPEFS) for school year 2008-2009, fiscal year 2009 (FY 09). It contains a brief description of the data collection along with information required to understand and access the data file. The Governments Division of the U.S. Census Bureau conducts the NPEFS data collection on behalf of NCES. The Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002, section 151(b) (3), 20 U.S.C. 9541, authorizes NCES to collect these data. NPEFS provides state aggregate finance data for revenues and expenditures for public elementary and secondary education. NPEFS data are useful to: (1) chief officers of state education agencies; (2) policymakers in the executive and legislative branches of federal and state governments; (3) education policy and public policy researchers; (4) the press; and (5) citizens interested in information about education finance. State education agencies (SEAs) in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and four U.S. Island Areas (American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands) report state aggregate finance data to the NPEFS program. The data file is organized by state or jurisdiction and contains revenue data by funding source, expenditure data by function and object, and average daily attendance (ADA) data. The file also includes total student membership data from the 2008-2009 CCD State Nonfiscal Survey of Public Elementary/Secondary Education 1c file. Appended are: (1) Record Layout and Description of Data Elements; (2) Glossary; (3) State Abbreviations and American National Standards Institute (ANSI) State Codes; (4) Imputations and Edits List; (5) Fiscal Data Plan Questions; (6) Fiscal Data Plan Responses; (7) Value Distribution and Field Frequencies; (8) State Notes; and (9) Survey Form. (Contains 3 tables, 7 exhibits 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:

 ERIC Full Text (2706K)

Descriptors:
Charter Schools; Vocational Education; Expenditures; Public Education; Elementary Secondary Education; Data Collection; State Departments of Education; Public Schools; Educational Finance; Special Education; Expenditure per Student; School Districts; School Construction; National Surveys; Tables (Data)

Abstract:
The Common Core of Data (CCD) is an annual collection of public elementary and secondary education data by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) in the Institute of Education Sciences of the U.S. Department of Education. The U.S. Census Bureau conducts the data collection for the finance surveys on behalf of NCES. State education agencies (SEAs) report the finance data through an online data collection site. SEAs report student membership data through the U.S. Department of Education's EDFacts data collection system. 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 National Public Education Financial Survey (NPEFS) 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 using fiscal year 2010 (FY 10) data from the provisional version 1a NPEFS file of the CCD survey system. Programs covered in NPEFS include regular, special, and vocational education; charter schools; and state-run education programs (such as special education centers or education programs for incarcerated youth). This First Look provides users with an opportunity to access provisional NPEFS 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 (2013). Appended are: (1) Methodology and Technical Notes; (2) Common Core of Data Glossary; and (3) Revised Fiscal Year 2009 Tables. (Contains 11 tables, 3 figures and 3 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 (1698K)

Descriptors:
Elementary Secondary Education; Educational Improvement; Core Curriculum; State Standards; Alignment (Education); Incidence; Remedial Instruction; Student Needs; Educational Attainment; Critical Path Method; Grade 11; College Readiness; Higher Education; State Departments of Education; Role; Educational Assessment; Articulation (Education)

Abstract:
The national movement to improve K-12 education through the implementation of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) presents a tremendous opportunity for higher education to experience reduced remediation and increased degree completion. In order for the CCSS to realize their promise, however, higher education must be a full partner with K-12 in their implementation. This document provides guidance for state higher education leaders on one crucial aspect of implementation: the role that state systems of higher education must play to build toward recognition of the Smarter Balanced assessment as evidence that students are ready for entry-level, credit-bearing courses and should be exempted from remediation in English language arts (ELA) and mathematics. (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:

 ERIC Full Text (348K)

Descriptors:
Educational Opportunities; Kindergarten; Professional Development; Feedback (Response); State Departments of Education; Cooperation; Partnerships in Education; School Districts; Preschool Teachers; Young Children; School Community Relationship; Family School Relationship; Advocacy; Organizations (Groups); Alignment (Education); Educational Assessment; Student Evaluation; Preschool Curriculum; Curriculum Design; Surveys; Educational Policy; Financial Support; Transitional Programs; School Readiness; Childhood Needs

Abstract:
In this brief, Christine Patton and Justina Wang, from Harvard Family Research Project, look at ways of helping to make the transition into kindergarten a positive experience that will serve as a foundation to help children reach their full potential throughout their school years. The brief highlights promising practices in six states--New Jersey, Georgia, Maryland, Minnesota, Virginia, and California--where local- and state-level leadership support a variety of initiatives to ensure successful transitions into kindergarten. The authors examine effective collaborative approaches in which state departments of education, advocacy organizations, school districts, early education teachers, kindergarten teachers, families, and community members work together to help kindergartners enter school ready to begin this pivotal new phase of their lives. The six states featured have each developed an integrated approach to the transition into kindergarten through the use of two or more of the following types of supports: (1) Aligned assessments, standards, and curriculum; (2) Professional development; (3) Programs for special populations; and (4) Communication and dissemination. Promising local-level transition practices include: (1) Transition teams; (2) Feedback surveys; and (3) Ongoing/year-round activities. The brief concludes with a set of recommendations for policymakers to help support these innovative practices at the local, state, and federal levels. State and federal policies to support collaborative and thoughtful transitions should accomplish the following: (1) Promote the importance of family and community partnerships during transitions through reporting and accountability systems; (2) Make joint preschool and kindergarten training and professional development opportunities available to increase teachers' knowledge of transition practices; (3) Build capacity for continued statewide and regional sharing of promising practices; and (4) Provide districts with funding opportunities to support their transition practices. Transition Practices by State are appended. (Contains 1 figure and 33 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 |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Early Reading; State Policy; Reading Skills; Reading Comprehension; Government School Relationship; State Departments of Education; Praxis; Reading Improvement; Educational Policy; Program Design; Program Implementation; Vocabulary Development

Abstract:
Reading words and developing larger vocabularies are critical parts of reading proficiency, but these checkpoints do not have significance until young students grasp the meaning behind words. While teachers and the school culture can improve early reading proficiency, legislatures and state education agencies can support such efforts by implementing systemic, replicable models for schools to use. Forty years of well-meaning state and national reading initiatives have not produced significantly higher student mastery. States have developed systemic plans to improve early reading proficiency, but translating these plans into actionable strategies has proven to be the real challenge. This paper provides a first-of-its-kind state policy roadmap. Such a roadmap, when combined with authoritative state leadership, can: (1) Drive effective program design and implementation; (2) Improve practice by strengthening classroom instruction, student assessments, and alternative interventions; (3) Strengthen curricular alignment across the P-3 spectrum; (4) Create systemic solutions, not just results; and (5) Engage stakeholders, including state leaders, teacher prep institutions, educators, students, and families in continuous improvement. This state policy roadmap uses data, research, and state policy examples to illustrate the importance of both system supports and the culture of schools and classrooms--and how each complements and relies on the other. The authors recognize that most states have already journeyed down this road--or are currently traveling down the road--but improving reading performance is one of those problems for which solutions will never be perfect, nor work for everyone. This is a tool to help review and revise policies that will make the journey more successful. Appended are: (1) State Policy Excerpts; and (2) Sample Tools for Screening and Progress Monitoring. (Contains 6 online resources.) 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