ethanporcaro/eric-fulltext-meta huggingface dataset:
SWIFT Intensive Technical Assistance Process. Technical Assistance Brief #1
Author: Sailor, Wayne
Date: 2014-03-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Technical Assistance,Inclusion,Mainstreaming,Accessibility (for Disabled),Data Analysis,Decision Making,Planning,Self Evaluation (Groups),Teamwork,Technical Support,Student Needs,Educational Change,Partnerships in Education,Educational Improvement

The national center on Schoolwide Integrated Framework for Transformation (SWIFT Center) is now approaching the halfway point in its first full year of providing intensive technical assistance (TA) to 68 schools in 20 local educational agencies across five states. The purpose of this brief is to provide a thumbnail sketch of how this TA process works. Readers interested in more detail should request: &quot;SWIFT National Technical Assistance Mapping, White Paper&quot; (2014), Amy McCart, Wayne Sailor, Michael McSheehan and Melinda Mitchiner.
Leading Education Reform Initiatives: How SWIFT (Schoolwide Integrated Framework for Transformation) Coordinates and Enhances Impact. Issue Brief #2
Author: Kingston, Mary
Date: 2014-03-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Educational Change,Federal Legislation,Educational Legislation,Federal Programs,Federal Aid,Grants,Academic Standards,State Standards,Access to Education,Response to Intervention,Positive Reinforcement,Behavior Modification,Program Implementation,Educational Cooperation,Sustainability,Stakeholders,Capacity Building,Educational Finance,Financial Support,Elementary Education

In this Issue Brief we discuss the impact that the Schoolwide Integrated Framework for Transformation (SWIFT) has on improving the outcomes of several current federal, state, district, and school education reform initiatives. Federal initiatives include Race to the Top, School Improvement Grants, and Campaign for Grade-Level Reading; Common Core State Standards is a state-led initiative; and district or school-level initiatives include Universal Design for Learning, Multi-Tiered System of Support with embedded Response to Intervention and Schoolwide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports. We examine how the SWIFT approach can bring about more effective implementation and stronger buy-in and collaboration among key stakeholders for these initiatives, as well as improve sustainability for long-term impact on student achievement.
What Do We Know about Using Value-Added to Compare Teachers Who Work in Different Schools? What We Know Series: Value-Added Methods and Applications. Knowledge Brief 10
Author: Raudenbush, Stephen
Date: 2013-08-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: Educational Research,Achievement Gains,Teacher Effectiveness,Comparative Analysis,Scores,Statistical Bias,Statistical Studies,Measures (Individuals),Error of Measurement,Accuracy,Goodness of Fit,Institutional Characteristics,Student Characteristics,Evaluation Problems,School Effectiveness,Teacher Evaluation,Individual Differences,Evidence,Evaluation Methods,Academic Achievement

This brief considers the problem of using value-added scores to compare teachers who work in different schools. The author focuses on whether such comparisons can be regarded as fair, or, in statistical language, &quot;unbiased.&quot; An unbiased measure does not systematically favor teachers because of the backgrounds of the students they are assigned to teach, nor does it favor teachers working in resource-rich classrooms or schools. A key caveat: A measure that is unbiased does not mean the measure is accurate. An unbiased measure could be imprecise--thus inaccurate--if, for example, it is based on a small sample of students or on a test with too few items. This brief focuses strictly on the bias that may arise when comparing the value-added scores of teachers who work in different schools. Raudenbush and Willms' linear model is appended.
Who Is My Brother's Keeper? All of Us. Issue Brief #5
Author: McCart, Amy B.
Date: 2014-07-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Minority Group Students,Males,Educational Change,Change Strategies,Academic Achievement,Social Development,Alignment (Education),Federal Programs,Equal Education,Student Needs,Educational Methods,Disabilities,Educational Environment,Elementary Secondary Education,Intervention,Teamwork,Progress Monitoring,Best Practices,Literacy Education,Discipline,Inclusion,English Language Learners,Administrator Role,Principals,Educational Resources,Responsibility

SWIFT is a national center whose mission is to help educators provide academic and behavioral support resulting in excellence in education for all students, including boys and young men of color. This mission presumes all educators, school and district staff, family members, and the local community have shared responsibility for the teaching and learning of each and every student, including those who are academically struggling, gifted, living in poverty, students with disabilities, high achievers, culturally and ethnically diverse students, and those with the most extensive needs. Funded by the Office of Special Education Programs, SWIFT shares its systemic approach to widespread school reform, which is closely aligned with the White House's &quot;My Brother's Keeper&quot; initiative to improve academic and social outcomes for boys and young men of color. This Issue Brief describes this alignment.
How America Saves for College, 2014: Sallie Mae's National Study of Parents with Children under Age 18
Author: Sallie Mae Bank
Date: 2014-00-00
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: Parent Attitudes,Paying for College,Higher Education,Money Management,Parent Financial Contribution,Family Financial Resources,Parent Responsibility,Economic Factors,Motivation,Racial Differences,Ethnicity,Student Loan Programs,Grants,Goal Orientation,Decision Making,Parent Surveys,National Surveys,Interviews

This is the fourth report in the Sallie Mae series &quot;How America Saves for College,&quot; which launched in 2009. To understand how American families are planning for their children's education, the study captures data on parents' decision-making about savings, the use of savings vehicles, and the amount they save, as well as attitudes toward paying for their children's future college education. Ipsos conducted online interviews with 2,020 parents with a child under the age of 18 in November and December of 2013. Respondents had the opportunity to take the survey in English or Spanish. The sample was selected to be nationally representative on key demographic variables. The study finds that parents are financially optimistic and saving more for college, signaling economic recovery. 89 percent of parents value education as an investment in their children's future. In fact, most parents are so confident in the success of a college education that 80 percent are willing to stretch themselves financially to save for college. For details on methodology, see the Technical Notes section. Included in the Tables section are the survey questions and results for each. [For the 2013 report, see ED540402.]
Bibliography of Research Support for K-8th Grade Inclusive Education
Author: National Center on Schoolwide Inclusive School Reform: The SWIFT Center
Date: 2014-12-00
Type: Reference Materials - Bibliographies
Subjects: Inclusion,Mainstreaming,Regular and Special Education Relationship,Elementary School Students,Middle School Students,Kindergarten,Grade 1,Grade 2,Grade 3,Grade 4,Grade 5,Grade 6,Grade 7,Grade 8,Educational Research,Books,Journal Articles,Outcomes of Education

Presented here are references to books, chapters, and peer-reviewed journal articles that provide evidence for improved student outcomes through inclusive education in elementary and middle schools (K-8th grades). Not included here are the broad evidence bases for each feature in the SWIFT framework.
How Can Value-Added Measures Be Used for Teacher Improvement? What We Know Series: Value-Added Methods and Applications. Knowledge Brief 13
Author: Loeb, Susanna
Date: 2013-12-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: Teacher Improvement,Achievement Gains,Teacher Evaluation,Teacher Effectiveness,Outcome Measures,Evidence,Information Utilization,Merit Pay,Merit Rating,Incentives,Management Information Systems,Educational Research,Program Improvement,Personnel Policy,Research Needs,Barriers,Academic Achievement

The question for this brief is whether education leaders can use value-added measures as tools for improving schooling and, if so, how to do this. Districts, states, and schools can, at least in theory, generate gains in educational outcomes for students using value-added measures in three ways: creating information on effective programs, making better decisions about human resources, and establishing incentives for higher performance from teachers. This brief reviews the evidence on each of these mechanisms and describes the drawbacks and benefits of using value-added measures in these and other contexts.
Improving Title II of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Expert Convening Summary
Author: McKay, Sarah
Date: 2015-02-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Federal Legislation,Educational Legislation,Elementary Secondary Education,Educational Policy,Educational Quality,Teacher Effectiveness,Teacher Improvement,Educational Improvement,Public Policy,Public Education,Educational Finance,Federal Aid,Educational Change,Best Practices

On December 5, 2014, the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching's DC office hosted an invitation-only gathering of fifteen federal, state, and local education policy experts in both the public and nonprofit sectors. The goal of the meeting was to explore strategies to improve Title II, Part A of the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act in anticipation of the Act's reauthorization. During this meeting participants were encouraged to think about the teacher-quality problem in new ways by first fully exploring the root causes of the issue, which often go unexamined in the fast-moving world of public policy. Using improvement-science techniques developed by the Carnegie Foundation to help educators and education policymakers see in their entirety the ways that systems produce problematic outcomes, participants explored the root causes of this problem statement: &quot;The public education system is not adequately recruiting, retaining, and supporting a high-quality/effective teacher workforce for all students.&quot; The exploration process involved identifying the major sources of the recruitment, retention, and support problem, and then producing a comprehensive mapping of the contributing factors in each major category. It yielded a variety of insights that may not have surfaced had the group jumped right into solutions without first seeing the system as a whole. Recommendations emerged on the distribution of Title II funds, spending priorities, the collection and report of spending data, and the communication of program expectations to funding recipients. In exploring the reasons why public education does not adequately recruit, retain, and support a high quality teaching workforce, participants identified six major problem areas: preparation, leadership, development, job design, culture/norms, and compensation. These areas provided the basis for an in-depth analysis of the teacher-quality challenge. This report provides details of the following recommendations that were a result of the expert convention: (1) Changing the way states and LEAs receive Title II, Part A funds; (2) Changing which activities are funded by Title II, Part A; (3) Changing the data systems and reporting around Title II, Part A; and (4) Changing the communication about and purpose of Title II, Part A. The following are appended: (1) Complete List of Root Causes as Expanded from Figure 1; and (2) Complete List of Participants' Ideas for Changing Title II.
South Carolina Higher Education Statistical Abstract, 2014. 36th Edition
Author: Armour, Mim, Ed.
Date: 2014-00-00
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: Higher Education,Full Time Equivalency,Full Time Students,Enrollment Trends,Undergraduate Students,Public Colleges,In State Students,Out of State Students,College Freshmen,Geographic Location,Counties,Racial Differences,Gender Differences,Academic Persistence,Private Colleges,College Transfer Students,Academic Degrees,Intellectual Disciplines,Graduation Rate,State Colleges,Two Year Colleges,College Entrance Examinations,Scores,Eligibility,Scholarships,Grants,Fellowships,Tuition,Fees,Housing,Costs,Educational Finance,Student Financial Aid,Poverty,Educational Facilities,School Buildings,Teacher Salaries,Tenure,Institutional Mission

The South Carolina Higher Education Statistical Abstract is a comprehensive, single-source compilation of tables and graphs which report data frequently requested by the Governor, Legislators, college and university staff, other state government officials, and the general public. The 2014 edition of the Statistical Abstract marks the 36th year of this valuable publication. This Abstract includes the most recent statistics on enrollment, degrees awarded, faculty, tuition and fees, funding, and other factual data. The following are appended: (1) Types of Public Institutions in South Carolina by Mission; (2) South Carolina Commission on Higher Education Publications, Reports and Brochures by Division; (3) Acronyms and Terms Pertaining to Higher Education; (4) Public Colleges and Universities Board of Trustees Members; (5) Glossary; and (6) Explanations and Changes in the Categories for Race/Ethnicity Reporting.
Does Value-Added Work Better in Elementary than in Secondary Grades? What We Know Series: Value-Added Methods Applications. Knowledge Brief 7
Author: Harris, Douglas N.
Date: 2013-05-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: Teacher Effectiveness,Teacher Evaluation,Evaluation Methods,Evaluation Research,Evaluation Problems,Test Reliability,Test Validity,Outcome Measures,Instructional Program Divisions,Middle School Teachers,Elementary School Teachers,High Schools,Secondary School Teachers,Research Needs,Barriers,Personnel Policy,Personnel Management,Achievement Gains,Merit Rating

There is a growing body of research on the validity and reliability of value-added measures, but most of this research has focused on elementary grades. Driven by several federal initiatives such as Race to the Top, Teacher Incentive Fund, and ESEA waivers, however, many states have incorporated value-added measures into the evaluations not only of elementary teachers but of middle and high school teachers as well. Almost all states have committed to one of the two Common Core assessments that will test annually in high school, and there is little doubt that value-added will be expanded to the grades in which the new assessments are introduced. In order to assess value-added and the validity and reliability of value-added measures, it is important to consider the significant differences across grades in the ways teachers' work and students' time are organized. This document provides evidence that there are differences in the validity of value-added measures across grades for two primary reasons. First, middle and high schools &quot;track&quot; students; that is, students are assigned to courses based on prior academic performance or other student characteristics. Tracking not only changes our ability to account for differences in the students who teachers educate, but also the degree to which the curriculum aligns with the tests. Second, the structure of schooling and testing vary considerably by grade level in ways that affect reliability in sometimes unexpected ways. The problems are partly correctable, but, as shown herein, more research is necessary to understand how problematic existing measures are and how they might be improved.
What Do Value-Added Measures of Teacher Preparation Programs Tell Us? What We Know Series: Value-Added Methods and Applications. Knowledge Brief 12
Author: Goldhaber, Dan
Date: 2013-11-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: Teacher Education Programs,Achievement Gains,Merit Rating,Outcome Measures,Schools of Education,Evaluation Methods,Evaluation Research,Research Needs,Evidence,Institutional Research,Institutional Evaluation,Preservice Teacher Education,Program Effectiveness,Program Evaluation,Benchmarking,Educational Quality

Teacher training programs are increasingly being held under the microscope. Perhaps the most notable of recent calls to reform was the 2009 declaration by U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan that &quot;by almost any standard, many if not most of the nation's 1,450 schools, colleges, and departments of education are doing a mediocre job of preparing teachers for the realities of the 21st century classroom.&quot; Duncan's indictment comes despite the fact that these programs require state approval and, often, professional accreditation. The problem is that the scrutiny generally takes the form of input measures, such as minimal requirements for the length of student teaching and assessments of a program's curriculum. Now the clear shift is toward measuring outcomes. Much of the existing research on teacher preparation has focused on comparing teachers who enter the profession through different routes--traditional versus alternative certification--but more recently, researchers have turned their attention to assessing individual teacher preparation providers (TPPs). And in doing so, researchers face many of the same statistical challenges that arise when value-added is used to evaluate individual teachers. This document discusses what value-added methods can and cannot say about the quality of TPPs and details what is known about value-added assessments of TPPs.
What Do We Know about the Use of Value-Added Measures for Principal Evaluation? What We Know Series: Value-Added Methods and Applications. Knowledge Brief 9
Author: Loeb, Susanna
Date: 2013-07-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: Principals,Administrator Evaluation,Achievement Gains,Evaluation Criteria,School Effectiveness,Evaluation Methods,Educational Improvement,Educational Research,Research Needs,Administrator Effectiveness,School Administration,Elementary Secondary Education,Administrator Role,Value Judgment

Principals play a central role in how well a school performs. They are responsible for establishing school goals and developing strategies for meeting them. They lead their schools' instructional programs, recruit and retain teachers, maintain the school climate, and allocate resources. How well they execute these and other leadership functions is a key determinant of school outcomes. Many districts are trying to create value-added measures for principals much like those they use for teachers. The idea is compelling, but the situations are not necessarily analogous. Estimating value-added for principals turns out to be even more complex than estimating value-added for teachers. Three methods have been suggested for assessing a principal's value-added. One method attributes all aspects of school effectiveness (how well students perform relative to students at other schools with similar background characteristics and students with similar peers) to the principal; a second attributes to the principal only the difference between the effectiveness of that school under that principal and the effectiveness of the same school under other principals; and a third attributes school improvement (gains in school effectiveness) to the principal. This document reviews each of these distinct methods and discusses the current state of knowledge, what more needs to be known, and what can't be resolved by empirical evidence on this issue.
What Do We Know about the Tradeoffs Associated with Teacher Misclassifications in High Stakes Personnel Decisions? What We Know Series: Value-Added Methods and Applications. Knowledge Brief 6
Author: Goldhaber, Dan
Date: 2013-04-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: Personnel Management,Personnel Policy,Teacher Evaluation,Teacher Effectiveness,Error of Measurement,Evaluation Methods,Evaluation Criteria,Benchmarking,Job Performance,Research Needs,Evidence,Barriers,Evaluation Problems,Ability Identification,Low Achievement,High Achievement

Better teacher evaluation should lead to better instruction and improved outcomes for students, but more accurate classification of teachers requires better information than is now available. Because existing measures of performance are incomplete and imperfect, measured performance does not always reflect true performance. Teachers who are truly high-performing may be classified as lower-performing and vice versa. Teacher classification is of course a necessity, and policymakers and practitioners must decide who is eligible to teach in which classrooms and how teachers are promoted or compensated. School leaders have commonly used such measures as academic degrees, teaching experience, classroom observation ratings, and assessments by principals to make these decisions. Less common is the use of &quot;value-added&quot; estimates. Value added measures, however, are being used more and more as data systems are better able to make that student-teacher link. As they are, the measures are raising concerns about the implications for misclassification. Given the risk of misclassification, it is tempting to limit the number of personnel decisions that rely on these imperfect measures. Yet personnel decisions are unavoidable, and they hold significant potential for improving schools. This knowledge brief presents a discussion of what is known about errors in classifying teacher effectiveness, and asks what more needs yet to be known about this issue. The brief touches on what cannot be resolved by empirical evidence on this issue, and advises how and under what circumstances this issue should impact the decisions and actions that districts can make based on teacher evaluations. Better measures of teacher effectiveness, both value-added and other kinds, could reduce both types of error. Given that misclassification is inescapable, reducing the consequences of the problem is an important additional goal and one with potentially large payoffs--particularly for students.