ethanporcaro/eric-fulltext-meta huggingface dataset:
Giving Teachers Useful Feedback
Author: TNTP
Date: 2011-12-07
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Academic Achievement,Feedback (Response),Neighborhoods,Public Schools,Socioeconomic Status,Poverty,Achievement Gap,Success,Teacher Improvement,Faculty Development,Observation,Teacher Competencies,Goal Orientation,Time Management

A vast gulf in academic achievement separates public schools in Washington, D.C.'s poorest neighborhoods from those in its most affluent. Achievement Prep, which serves 4th-8th graders in D.C.'s impoverished 8th Ward, is an outlier. Yet in 2011, 60% of Achievement Prep's &quot;scholars&quot; scored proficient or advanced in reading on the DC-CAS tests, while just 28% of their neighborhood peers did. While many factors are contributing to the school's success, one stands out: the school's complete commitment to helping its teachers grow as professionals by giving them rich and regular feedback. Achievement Prep structures feedback around &quot;quick hits&quot;: small, manageable pieces of a teacher's craft that could be easily improved. Between 2010 and 2011, Achievement Prep doubled the number of observations each teacher received each year, from 20 to nearly 40. That same year, every single teacher in the school reported that observations helped them improve student outcomes--a testament to the value of the bite-size, real-time feedback.
Responding Globally to the Online Learning Needs of Military Students
Author: Bricker, Suzane L.
Date: 2012-11-13
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Educational Research,Research Needs,Armed Forces,Military Personnel,College Students,Time Management,Electronic Learning,Online Courses,Virtual Classrooms,Global Approach,Student Needs,Student Motivation,Geographic Isolation,Social Isolation,Quality of Life,Context Effect,Barriers,Synchronous Communication,Access to Computers,Literary Styles,Teacher Role,Interpersonal Competence,Evaluation Methods

The purpose of my proposal is to present a comprehensive look at the specific needs of military students who are actively deployed globally, and who are entering the "virtual classroom" for the first time. Additionally, I have drawn upon my own experiences as an educator of more than 15 years, as well as someone who has developed course curriculum and provided related instruction in on-ground, hybridized, accelerated, and online formats to encourage vigorous discussion of facilitating the needs of such a specialized group.  Moreover, I am suggesting the immediate need for further investigation into both the quality and content of learning experiences for actively deployed military personnel who are enrolled in online undergraduate programs, since it appears that the data collected on this particular sub-set of learners is limited in focus. Thus, such studies would need to include direct input from the students themselves, as well as from educational professionals who are guiding these virtual classroom experiences. Finally, my recommendation is that a commission be developed on a national scale to review and evaluate the outcome of data generated by such research efforts, and also, that this particular committee be assigned to make recommendations regarding changes in curriculum or delivery methods, to better serve the needs of professional military students who are engaged in a virtual learning environment.  Following the document text is an Appendix that includes a PowerPoint presentation (in PDF format) presented on November 13, 2012, at the 2012 Global Education Conference.
Myths & Facts about Value-Added Analysis
Author: TNTP
Date: 2011-11-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Academic Achievement,Standardized Tests,Teacher Evaluation,Evaluation Methods,Misconceptions,Measurement,Educational Assessment,Evaluation Research,Evaluation Problems

This paper presents myths as well as facts about value-added analysis. These myths include: (1) "Value-added isn't fair to teachers who work in high-need schools, where students tend to lag far behind academically"; (2) "Value-added scores are too volatile from year-to-year to be trusted"; (3) "There's no research behind value-added"; (4) "Using value-added means that teachers will be evaluated based solely on standardized test scores"; and (5) "Value-added is useless because it's imperfect--it has a margin of error." Facts include: (1) Value-added controls for students' past academic performance and demographic factors; (2) Value-added scores are about as stable as batting averages in baseball and other widely-accepted performance measures; (3) Value-added is the product of nearly three decades of research by leading academics and economists; (4) Evaluations that include value-added also use other measures of teacher performance, such as classroom observations; and (5) Measures of teacher performance don't have to be perfect to be useful. (Contains 7 footnotes.)
Greenhouse Schools: How Schools Can Build Cultures Where Teachers and Students Thrive. Executive Summary
Author: TNTP
Date: 2012-00-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: Teacher Attitudes,School Culture,School Effectiveness,Teacher Effectiveness,Educational Practices,Educational Strategies,Teacher Surveys,National Surveys,Educational Improvement,Principals,Instructional Leadership,Teacher Persistence

Successful teachers make successful schools. Yet some schools are better than others at accelerating student learning by developing and keeping great teachers, even compared to schools that serve the same population of students and have access to the same resources. These schools are called "greenhouse schools"--schools with carefully fostered cultures that help teachers and students reach greater heights. What are they doing differently? The short answer is that greenhouse schools accomplish what others only claim to do; they prioritize great teaching above all else. That's TNTP's conclusion after surveying more than 4,800 teachers in almost 250 schools across the country over the past two years. Although other surveys have helped describe certain elements of school culture, TNTP researchers focused on two questions that they felt had not yet been answered: (1) What kind of school culture is most likely to increase retention of the best teachers and improve student learning?; and (2) What concrete steps can principals take to create that culture in their own schools? This executive summary presents five findings of this research: (1) Teachers want schools with a strong instructional culture--a culture that fosters great teaching; (2) Schools with strong instructional cultures retain more of their top teachers; (3) Schools with strong instructional cultures help students learn more; (4) A stronger instructional culture is within reach of any committed school leader; and (5) Dramatic improvements in instructional culture are possible--sometimes in just one year. [For the full report "Greenhouse Schools: How Schools Can Build Cultures Where Teachers and Students Thrive," see ED533216.]
Evidence Based Education Request Desk. EBE #591B
Author: Regional Educational Laboratory Southeast (ED)
Date: 2010-04-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Information Management,Evidence,Longitudinal Studies,Consortia,Data Analysis,Federal Legislation,Elementary Secondary Education,Kindergarten,Higher Education,Educational Improvement,Best Practices,Educational Research,Annotated Bibliographies,Educational Policy,State Policy,Federal Programs,Information Systems

Longitudinal Data Systems (LDS) house student data spanning multiple years and schools. First and foremost among LDS information resources is the Data Quality Campaign (DQC). The DQC is a nationwide consortium assembled to support states, districts, and schools as they design and implement data systems to improve student outcomes. The research and resources in this paper have been divided into three categories: (1) Necessity; (2) Implementing; and (3) Utilizing. This paper is a response to a request asking for a bibliography of the seminal pieces of research related to ARRA Assurance #2--Longitudinal Data Systems.
Developing Schools' Capacity for Evaluating Technology Projects: Lessons Learned from the North Carolina IMPACT Schools
Author: Knestis, Kirk
Date: 2007-11-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Educational Technology,Technology Uses in Education,Leadership,State Departments of Education,Federal Legislation,Capacity Building,Grants,Program Effectiveness,Faculty Development,Models,Educational Change,Cooperation,Educational Media,Facilitators (Individuals),Coordinators,Flexible Scheduling,Financial Support,Educational Resources,Program Evaluation

In 2002, the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (DPI) initiated an innovative and ambitious program for improving student learning through the effective use of instructional technology. Until that point, most technology projects in schools were geared toward integrating technology into the curriculum, and they tended to focus on professional development for teachers and the acquisition of equipment. Evidence that technology integration was making a difference in student learning was limited. In the belief that technology can be a catalyst for improving student outcomes, and armed with a sound understanding of the research on school improvement, DPI developed the IMPACT model for schools. The model goes beyond traditional approaches to technology integration by encompassing all of the elements that research suggests are components of an effective school-based technology and media program: leadership, collaboration, professional development, a media coordinator, a technology facilitator, flexible scheduling, infrastructure, resources, evaluation, and an adequate budget. To pilot the model, DPI took the bold step of using their funding from the Enhancing Education Through Technology (EETT) component of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) to award IMPACT grants to eleven resource poor schools across the state. Each of the eleven grants was for three years and 1.5 million dollars, which provided the IMPACT schools the time and resources they would need in order to fully implement the model. With such a heavy commitment of resources to individual schools, educators and policymakers in North Carolina--and across the nation--were interested in finding out whether the IMPACT model does indeed improve student learning. Thus, in 2003, DPI sought and was awarded a grant from the U.S. Department of Education (ED) to study the implementation and impact of the model. The purpose of this document is to share insights into and lessons learned from SERVE's work with the IMPACT schools as they implemented and evaluated their projects. [This paper was organized through the &quot;Looking at North Carolina's Educational Technology&quot; (LANCET) project, a partnership of the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, The SERVE Center at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro, and North Carolina State University.]
Evidence Based Education Request Desk. EBE #591C
Author: Regional Educational Laboratory Southeast (ED)
Date: 2010-04-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Evidence,Educational Change,Educational Improvement,School Turnaround,Methods,Models,Elementary Secondary Education,Educational Research,Annotated Bibliographies

School improvement and reform has again taken center stage both among educators and the public due in no small part to U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan's call for turning around 5,000 of the lowest performing schools, coupled with a budget of approximately $4 billion dollars in competitive grant funding to address those needs. A recent survey of the research on school reform and turnaround efforts found that many scholars feel "rigorous research" to be "a scarce commodity" in this arena (Herman et al., 2008; Viadero, 2009, p. 10). Several researchers interviewed for the survey contend that there is a lack of both turnarounds and research about successful turnaround efforts in education. This Evidence Based Education (EBE) Request seeks to provide an overview of recent research regarding school improvement and reform with special concentration on turning around chronically low-performing schools. The response is divided into four main sections: Research on Effective Methods for Turning Around Low-Performing Schools, Frameworks for School Improvement and Turnaround, Additional Resources, and Bibliography and References. (Contains 2 figures and 3 footnotes.)
Evidence Based Education Request Desk. EBE #387
Author: Regional Educational Laboratory Southeast (ED)
Date: 2009-03-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Dropouts,At Risk Students,Secondary Schools,Secondary School Students,Annotated Bibliographies,Predictor Variables,Intervention,Prevention,Dropout Prevention,Student Needs,Urban Schools

This paper provides web sites of interest with specific information on dropouts/early warning indicator systems as well as recent conferences discussing early warning indicator systems. This paper is a response to a request asking for early warning indicator systems research for secondary schools. A bibliography is included.
National Concurrent Enrollment Partnership Standards
Author: National Alliance of Concurrent Enrollment Partnerships (NACEP)
Date: 2009-12-15
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Program Development,Dual Enrollment,Student Surveys,Difficulty Level,Academic Standards,Teacher Qualifications,Accountability,Program Evaluation

The National Alliance of Concurrent Enrollment Partnerships (NACEP) is a professional organization for high schools and colleges that fosters and supports rigorous concurrent enrollment. Established in 1999 in response to the dramatic increase in concurrent enrollment courses throughout the country, NACEP serves as a national accrediting body and supports all members by providing standards of excellence, research, communication, and advocacy. NACEP's "Standards" are measurable criteria that address quality in concurrent enrollment programs. The standards promote the implementation of policies and practices to ensure that: (1) Concurrent enrollment courses offered in the high school are the same as the courses offered on-campus at the sponsoring college or university; (2) Students enrolled in concurrent enrollment courses are held to the same standards of achievement as students in on-campus courses; and (3) Instructors teaching college or university courses through the concurrent enrollment program meet the academic requirements for faculty and instructors teaching in the sponsoring postsecondary institution. Additionally, the standards encourage greater accountability for concurrent enrollment programs through required impact studies, student surveys, and course and program evaluations. The standards are the basis for accreditation, but all concurrent enrollment programs can benefit by using the standards as a framework for program development.
Evidence Based Education Request Desk. EBE #463-B
Author: Regional Educational Laboratory Southeast (ED)
Date: 2009-08-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Response to Intervention,Reading Instruction,Elementary Secondary Education,Educational Research,Evidence,Annotated Bibliographies

Most of the literature on Response to Interventions (RtI) has focused on reading instruction and interventions. For more than a decade, there has been a plethora of research on reading achievement in preschool and primary grades (National Reading Panel, 2000). Over the last 7 years, there has been tremendous growth in the development and research on adolescent literacy (Biancarosa & Snow, 2004; Bottoms, 2005; Kamil, 2003). Therefore, educators have a wide range of interventions from which to select a program for their students. However, the whole process begins with assessing a student's needs. This paper offers one example of laying out the interventions teachers are exploring. It provides their planning team a quick glance at the intervention, related research studies, and its evidence of effectiveness. Another table could point out the features of the interventions for a quick comparison (See Gersten et al., 2009; Table D1, p. 69). This paper is a response to a request asking for information on Tier II (Targeted Interventions) Reading Interventions.
Accreditation Guide for Peer Reviewers and Applicants. Version 2.0
Author: National Alliance of Concurrent Enrollment Partnerships (NACEP)
Date: 2012-10-00
Type: Guides - Non-Classroom
Subjects: Accreditation (Institutions),College School Cooperation,Dual Enrollment,Academic Standards,Partnerships in Education,Peer Evaluation,Difficulty Level

The National Alliance of Concurrent Enrollment Partnerships (NACEP) works to ensure that college courses offered in high schools are as rigorous as courses offered on the sponsoring college campus. As the sole accrediting body for concurrent enrollment partnerships, NACEP helps these programs adhere to the highest standards so students experience a seamless transition to college and teachers benefit from meaningful, ongoing professional development. This guide is intended to provide consistent information to NACEP Accreditation Peer Reviewers and Applicants on the interpretation of NACEP's Standards, the range of acceptable practices, frequently asked questions about the Standards, and advice on assembling a well-designed accreditation application to facilitate peer review. It is intended to help programs that are conducting self-studies in anticipation of applying for NACEP accreditation in 2013 and beyond. This guide does not include a detailed description of the accreditation process or timeline. The most up to date timeline, application instructions and forms can be found on the NACEP website. (Contains 2 footnotes.)
Promoting Quality: State Strategies for Overseeing Dual Enrollment Programs
Author: Lowe, Adam I.
Date: 2010-10-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: Higher Education,Accreditation (Institutions),Quality Control,Governing Boards,Community Colleges,Politics of Education,Dual Enrollment,Educational Quality,Educational Policy,State Programs,Case Studies,State Policy,Educational Objectives,Articulation (Education),Secondary Education

Few states have established systems for overseeing dual enrollment programs to encourage institutions to align their practices with quality standards. Five states (Arkansas, Indiana, Minnesota, Iowa, and South Dakota), have established incentives or requirements for post-secondary concurrent enrollment providers to pursue the National Alliance of Concurrent Enrollment Partnerships (NACEP) accreditation as one quality assurance mechanism. NACEP's peer-review accreditation process promotes the implementation of policies and practices to ensure that concurrent enrollment courses offered in the high school are the same as the courses offered on the sponsoring college campus. A number of states are currently designing or redesigning dual enrollment oversight systems, including Indiana, Colorado, Kentucky, Ohio, Oregon, Montana, and Wyoming. While prior studies by the Education Commission of the States, the Community College Research Center, and the Western Interstate Compact for Higher Education have examined dual enrollment policies across the 50 states, none have looked in depth at the processes by which states conduct program oversight. This report is designed to fill that void, by illuminating dual enrollment oversight and review strategies among the following state-level entities: (1) Florida Department of Education; (2) Illinois Community College Board; (3) Oregon Dual Credit Oversight Committee; (4) South Dakota Board of Regents; (5) Utah System of Higher Education and Utah Office of Education; and (6) Virginia Community College System. The report presents these six as in-depth case studies, and does not evaluate or judge the practices. NACEP does not take a position favoring a particular form of dual enrollment program oversight, and instead offers this report to help further knowledge and understanding of state-level policies and practices that advance the goal of seamless education through secondary and post-secondary collaborations. A list of works cited and selected state resources is included. (Contains 4 footnotes.)
Evidence Based Education Request Desk. EBE #69
Author: Regional Educational Laboratory Southeast (ED)
Date: 2006-12-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Academic Achievement,Teacher Effectiveness,Evidence,Program Effectiveness,Program Implementation,Federal Legislation,High School Students,Coaching (Performance),Literacy,Educational Legislation,Professional Development,High Schools,Internet

Although there is a great deal of interest in the concept of literacy coaching in the wake of the No Child Left Behind legislation, and a number of programs exist that incorporate this technique, there has been little reliable research done on the impact of literacy coaches on student achievement. Currently, the information that is available related to literacy coaching is anecdotal or descriptive, and it often focuses on elementary school programs. Few, if any, studies of literacy coaching exist, and almost no empirical evidence of literacy coaching's impact on student achievement is available, although a few studies are underway or planned for the near future. While it can be said that available information supports the usefulness of literacy coaching, this lack of evidence precludes claiming that research validates literacy coaching as a proven technique for improving student achievement. However, there is considerable research that supports systematic professional development, of which literacy coaching is a type, as a means to improve teacher effectiveness. The annotated bibliography presented contains available research reports on literacy coaching, both from the standpoint of student achievement resulting from literacy coaching programs, and from the standpoint of program implementation. The results of this search are divided into resources specific to high schools, more general resources, and web resources. This paper is a response to a request asking for information regarding the impact of literacy coaches on high school student achievement.
Evidence Based Education Request Desk. EBE #449
Author: Regional Educational Laboratory Southeast (ED)
Date: 2009-06-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Academic Achievement,Teacher Effectiveness,Professional Development,Teacher Evaluation

How do the six southeastern states incorporate student achievement as a component of their teacher evaluation system (or do they)? Each state uses student achievement as a component of their teacher evaluation. However, the extent to which it is expressed directly or implied in evaluation components varies from state to state. In Alabama, student achievement scores are not used directly to evaluate teacher effectiveness, but the data are used to develop professional development plans. Once evaluations are completed, teachers use the evaluation results and student achievement data to identify areas of weakness and to develop a plan for professional development. Florida is more explicit in its use of student achievement scores. Rule 6B-4.010 states that annual evaluations of professional performance of all instructional personnel be based primarily on &quot;improved student achievement.&quot; Georgia's &quot;keys&quot; for teacher quality include a set of five strands (student achievement being one of the five) containing 11 standards with 26 elements. The Mississippi evaluation system is used to identify teachers in need of improvement. Components are based on six standards, each with indicators. Though not as explicit as Florida, North Carolina weaves student achievement and the use of data to understand student learning in many aspects of their evaluation components. There is an emphasis on teachers' ability to use student achievement data to inform practice. Finally, South Carolina's ADEPT states the central purpose of the system is to promote teacher quality and increase student achievement. Specifically, student achievement &quot;has a direct relationship to each of the ADEPT domains for classroom-based teachers (planning, instruction, environment, and professionalism) and the related ADEPT Performance Standards.&quot;