ethanporcaro/eric-fulltext-meta huggingface dataset:
Lacking Leaders: The Challenges of Principal Recruitment, Selection, and Placement
Author: Doyle, Daniela
Date: 2014-06-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: Principals,Recruitment,Personnel Selection,Job Placement,Urban Schools,School Districts,Interviews,Qualitative Research,Statistical Analysis,Salaries,Work Environment,Budgets

Principals are vitally important. But ever-rising accountability standards, limited authority over key decisions, and mediocre pay make the job more and more demanding and less and less attractive to talented leaders. At a time when schools need high-quality leaders more than ever, the grueling nature of the job makes it a tough sell, and principals tend to come and go. But are school systems doing all they can to meet these challenges head-on? Or are some making a difficult recruitment and selection job impossible, through bureaucratic procedures, unrealistic calendars, too little outreach, and inappropriate placements? How can districts hire many more talented leaders and place them where they&apos;re most needed? This report unveils some of the mystery behind principal hiring by taking an in-depth look at practices in five urban districts. To do this, the authors interviewed district staff and newly hired principals, surveyed principal candidates, and analyzed a range of qualitative and quantitative data related to districts&apos; hiring practices. The authors offer six recommendations to any district looking to improve their recruiting procedures: (1) Make the job a lot more appealing; (2) Pay great leaders what they are worth; (3) Take an active approach to principal recruitment; (4) Evaluate candidates against the competencies and skills that successful principals are known to possess; (5) Design the placement process to match schools&apos; needs with candidates&apos; strengths; and (6) Continually evaluate hiring efforts. An appendix presents the methodology used in this study. [The foreword to this report was written by Chester E. Finn, Jr. and Amber M. Northern.]
Professional Practice, Student Surveys, and Value-Added: Multiple Measures of Teacher Effectiveness in the Pittsburgh Public Schools. REL 2014-024
Author: Chaplin, Duncan
Date: 2014-07-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: Teacher Effectiveness,Public Schools,Teacher Evaluation,Student Surveys,Evaluation Methods,Measures (Individuals),Faculty Development,Correlation,Principals,Standards,Educational Practices,Professional Identity,Student Attitudes,Academic Achievement,Scores,Interrater Reliability,Student Characteristics,Reliability

Responding to federal and state prompting, school districts across the country are implementing new teacher evaluation systems that aim to increase the rigor of evaluation ratings, better differentiate effective teaching, and support personnel and staff development initiatives that promote teacher effectiveness and ultimately improve student achievement. Pittsburgh Public Schools (PPS) has been working for the last several years to develop richer and more-comprehensive measures of teacher effectiveness in support of a larger effort to promote effective teaching. In partnership with PPS, REL Mid-Atlantic collected data from Pittsburgh on three different types of teacher performance measures: professional practice measures derived from the Danielson Framework for Teaching; Tripod student survey measures; and value-added measures designed to assess each teacher's contribution to student achievement growth. The study found that each of the three types of measures has the potential to differentiate the performance levels of different teachers. Moreover, the three types of measures are positively but modestly correlated with each other, suggesting that they are valid and complementary measures of teacher effectiveness and that they can be combined to produce a measure that is more comprehensive than any single measure. School-level variation in the ratings on the professional practice measure, however, suggests that different principals may have different standards in assigning ratings, which in turn suggests that the measure might be improved by using more than one rater of professional practice for each teacher. Five appendices present: (1) Descriptions of the three teacher evaluation measures; (2) Detailed tables; (3) Principal components analyses; (4) Correlating the Research-based Inclusive System of Evaluation and 7Cs ratings with partly concurrent value-added measure estimates; and (5) Checking Research-based Inclusive System of Evaluation ratings within and between schools. [This report was prepared for the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) by Regional Educational Laboratory Mid-Atlantic administered by ICF International.]
The Effects of Increased Learning Time on Student Academic and Nonacademic Outcomes: Findings from a Meta-Analytic Review. REL 2014-015
Author: Kidron, Yael
Date: 2014-06-00
Type: Information Analyses
Subjects: Time Factors (Learning),Time on Task,Meta Analysis,Standards,Evidence,Student Needs,Academic Achievement,Mathematics Achievement,Reading Achievement,Reading Improvement,Outcomes of Education,Teacher Certification,Teacher Qualifications,Teaching Styles,Low Achievement,Interpersonal Competence,Emotional Intelligence,Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder,Research Methodology,Program Descriptions,Program Implementation,Elementary School Students,Middle School Students,High School Students,After School Programs,Urban Schools,Rural Schools,Suburban Schools,Comparative Analysis,At Risk Students,Student Motivation,Statistical Significance,Reliability,Validity,Effect Size,Program Effectiveness

REL Appalachia conducted a systematic review of the research evidence on the effects of increased learning time. After screening more than 7,000 studies, REL Appalachia identified 30 that met the most rigorous standards for research. A review of those 30 studies found that increased learning time does not always produce positive results. However, some forms of instruction tailored to the needs of specific types of students were found to improve their circumstances. Specific findings include: (1) Increased learning time promoted student achievement in mathematics and literacy when instruction was led by a certified teacher and when teachers used a traditional instructional style (i.e., the teacher is responsible for the progression of activities and students follow directions to complete tasks); (2) Increased learning time improved literacy outcomes for students performing below standards; and (3) Increased learning time improved social-emotional skills of students with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Four appendices present: (1) Research methodology; (2) Program descriptions of the 30 reviewed studies; (3) Program implementation in the reviewed studies; and (4) Narrative summaries of the increased learning time programs evaluated in the studies reviewed. [This report was prepared for the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) by Regional Educational Laboratory Appalachia administered by CNA.]
Developing a Coherent Research Agenda: Lessons from the REL Northeast &amp; Islands Research Agenda Workshops. REL 2014-014
Author: Kochanek, Julie Reed
Date: 2014-06-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Educational Research,Agenda Setting,Workshops,Facilitators (Individuals),Research Design,Goal Orientation,Virtual Classrooms,Discussion Groups,Time Perspective

This report describes the approach that REL Northeast and Islands (REL-NEI) used to guide its eight research alliances toward collaboratively identifying a shared research agenda. A key feature of their approach was a two-workshop series, during which alliance members created a set of research questions on a shared topic of education policy and/or practice. This report explains how REL-NEI conceptualized and organized the workshops, planned the logistics, overcame geographic distance among alliance members, developed and used materials (including modifications for different audiences and for a virtual platform), and created a formal research agenda after the workshops. The report includes links to access the materials used for the workshops, including facilitator and participant guides and slide decks. [This report was prepared for the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) by Regional Educational Laboratory Northeast &amp; Islands administered by Education Development Center, Inc.]
A Validity Study of the NAEP Full Population Estimates
Author: Hedges, Larry V.
Date: 2013-08-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: National Competency Tests,Test Validity,Inclusion,Statistical Significance,Achievement Gains,Mathematics Achievement,Reading Achievement,Writing Achievement,Science Achievement,Testing Accommodations,Calculators,Test Format,Disabilities

In early 2001, to support an internal evaluation of the impact of changing exclusion rates on reports of statistically significant gains across states, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) sponsored research on imputation procedures of National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) scores for the excluded students and provided adjusted or full population estimates (FPEs) for the 1996 to 2000 NAEP mathematics gains. The same method was subsequently used to produce FPEs for Grades 4 and 8 in reading, writing, mathematics, and science for each year these assessments were administered since 1994. In spite of considerable prior research, NAEP FPEs have not yet achieved operational status, and further validity research has been recommended. The occasion of two special inclusion studies in the 2011 NAEP assessment--designed to determine if students who are excluded from the operational assessment can meaningfully participate if offered one of two special booklets--presented just such an opportunity for additional validity research on the FPEs. The Educational Testing Service (ETS) analyzed the data from these otherwise excluded students, but the analyses were not carried out for the purposes of validating the FPEs. The purpose of this document is to report a study that capitalized on these inclusion studies to obtain further validity evidence about the FPEs and to better inform a possible decision to move toward operational status for the FPE methodology. Fieldwork for two closely related inclusion studies was carried out as part of the 2011 NAEP Mathematics Assessment. The two studies had slightly different student populations and examined different accommodations. One study focused on the use of calculators as an accommodation (in states that permit this accommodation on their state assessments). The other study focused on an inclusion booklet composed of Knowledge and Skill Appropriate (KaSA) blocks. In some states, there were students included in both studies (i.e., some students included because of the calculator accommodation and other students included because of the inclusion blocks). In other states, only the inclusion block was offered because the states did not allow a calculator accommodation on their state assessments. In conclusion, these studies suggest that the calculator block and KaSA booklet accommodations, by themselves, will not change the number of included students enough to have a substantial impact on national parameter estimates. Each study is outlined briefly in this report. Procedures for Calculating Full Population Estimates is appended.
Examining the Content and Context of the Common Core State Standards: A First Look at Implications for the National Assessment of Educational Progress
Author: Stancavage, Frances B., Ed.
Date: 2013-08-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: National Competency Tests,State Standards,Academic Standards,Academic Achievement,Progress Monitoring,Educational Assessment,Curriculum Design,Educational Change,Test Validity,Comparative Analysis,Correlation,Psychometrics,Achievement Gains,Mathematics Tests,Alignment (Education),Reading Tests,Writing Tests,Language Arts

Since its inception more than four decades ago, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) has served as a key indicator of what the nation's students know and can do in academic subjects. NAEP assessments provide a mechanism for putting the achievements of students in all states on a common scale; the assessments also serve as independent monitors of progress, because they have no high-stakes consequences for schools or students. The recently developed Common Core State Standards (CCSS) have been widely adopted by the states. These new standards, and the assessments being built to measure them, offer the possibility of far greater uniformity in curriculum and assessment across the nation than has characterized U.S. education in the past. In addition, the CCSS embody many emerging themes of education reform. In this context, the NAEP Validity Studies Panel (NVS Panel) devoted a substantial portion of its annual validity research agenda in 2011 and 2012 to exploring the relationship between NAEP and the CCSS, and to considering how NAEP can work synergistically with the CCSS assessments to provide the nation with the most useful information about educational progress. This volume includes two substantial studies exploring the relationship between the content of the NAEP mathematics, reading, and writing assessments and the CCSS in mathematics and English language arts (ELA). These two content studies are complemented by two shorter white papers that explore (1) the potential for incorporating learning progressions into NAEP assessments; and (2) the implications for the NAEP program of coming changes in psychometric approaches to statewide testing. The four studies presented herein are: (1) &quot;A Study of the Alignment between the NAEP Mathematics Framework and the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics (CCSS-M),&quot; by Gerunda B. Hughes, Phil Daro, Deborah Holtzman, and Kyndra Middleton (See ED545238); (2) &quot;A Study of NAEP Reading and Writing Frameworks and Assessments in Relation to the Common Core State Standards in English Language Arts,&quot; by Karen K. Wixson, Sheila W. Valencia, Sandra Murphy, and Gary W. Phillips (See ED545239); (3) &quot;The Relevance of Learning Progressions for NAEP,&quot; by Lorrie Shepard, Phil Daro, and Fran B. Stancavage (See ED545240); and (4) &quot;What Might Changes in Psychometric Approaches to Statewide Testing Mean for NAEP?,&quot; by David Thissen and Scott Norton (See ED545241). [Individual studies contain appendices and references.]
A Study of NAEP Reading and Writing Frameworks and Assessments in Relation to the Common Core State Standards in English Language Arts
Author: Wixson, Karen K.
Date: 2013-08-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: National Competency Tests,Reading Achievement,Writing Achievement,State Standards,Academic Standards,Language Arts,Comparative Analysis,Federal Legislation,Educational Legislation,Achievement Gap,Disadvantaged Youth,Test Validity,Academic Achievement,Correlation,College Readiness,Career Readiness,Alignment (Education),Educational Assessment,Achievement Gains

Since its first assessment in 1969, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) has made a unique contribution to our understanding of American education. It is the only national source of information on the educational achievement of U.S. students, and it is the only vehicle by which states can compare the progress of their students against a common standard. Assessment results reported by NAEP complement the states' own reports of progress under No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and track the status of achievement gaps for traditionally disadvantaged student groups. NAEP is carried out under the guidance of the National Assessment Governing Board (Governing Board) and the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). Throughout the course of its history, NAEP has frequently sought to improve by studying its own processes, instruments, and procedures. In keeping with this tradition, in fall 2011, NCES asked the NAEP Validity Studies (NVS) Panel, which operates under contract to NCES, to undertake two inter-related studies, one in reading/writing and one in mathematics, to examine the content of the current NAEP frameworks and item pools at Grades 4, 8, and 12 in relation to the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). The primary question under investigation is whether NAEP can continue to serve as an independent monitor of student achievement and state assessments following the implementation of the CCSS. This report addresses the relations between the NAEP reading and writing frameworks and the CCSS in English language arts (CCSS-ELA), and the relations between the NAEP reading and writing items and the CCSS-ELA. It does not address the relations between NAEP reading and writing items and items developed by the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) and the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (Smarter Balanced) to assess the CCSS-ELA because those items were not available at the time of this study. The report concludes with recommendations to NCES regarding broader issues on the alignment between NAEP reading and writing and CCSS-ELA, including the extent of alignment that is appropriate to support NAEP's role as an independent monitor of student achievement. An appendix presents a list of the Reading and Writing Panelists. [For the main report, &quot;Examining the Content and Context of the Common Core State Standards: A First Look at Implications for the National Assessment of Educational Progress,&quot; see ED545237.]
The Relevance of Learning Progressions for NAEP
Author: Shepard, Lorrie
Date: 2013-08-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: National Competency Tests,Educational Assessment,State Standards,Academic Standards,College Readiness,Career Readiness,Science Achievement,Mathematics Tests,Learning Processes,Academic Achievement,Curriculum Design,Curriculum Development,Educational Change,Test Validity,Comparative Analysis,Correlation,Psychometrics,Achievement Gains

&quot;Learning progressions&quot; are one of the most important assessment design ideas to be introduced in the past decade. In the United States, several committees of the National Research Council (NRC) have argued for the use of learning progressions as a means to foster both deeper mastery of subject-matter content and higher level reasoning abilities. Consideration of learning progressions is especially important in the context of the new Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) that attend specifically to the sequencing of topics and skills across grades to ensure attainment of college and career expectations by the end of high school. In this paper we address the question: Should more formally developed learning progressions be considered for the future design of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)? After a brief overview of the research on learning progressions, we describe the idealized model whereby shared, instructionally grounded learning progressions--once developed--could be used to link classroom-level assessments with large-scale assessments such as NAEP. At the same time, we also consider potential problems. In particular, learning progressions--which require agreed-upon instructional sequences--could be problematic in the context of a national assessment program intended to be curriculum neutral (i.e., not favoring one state's or district's curriculum over another). Finally, we use a sample of NAEP and Balanced Assessment in Mathematics (BAM; Mathematics Assessment Resource Service, 2002, 2003) items to explore the possibility of constructing &quot;quasi learning progressions&quot; that could be used to illuminate the substantive meaning of the NAEP achievement results. An appendix presents: Items in Learning Progressions. [For the main report, &quot;Examining the Content and Context of the Common Core State Standards: A First Look at Implications for the National Assessment of Educational Progress,&quot; see ED545237.]
What Might Changes in Psychometric Approaches to Statewide Testing Mean for NAEP?
Author: Thissen, David
Date: 2013-08-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: National Competency Tests,Psychometrics,State Standards,Academic Standards,Partnerships in Education,College Readiness,Career Readiness,Accountability,Test Validity,Computer Assisted Testing,Educational Assessment,Comparative Analysis,Academic Achievement,Correlation,Achievement Gains,Alignment (Education),Mathematics Tests,Reading Tests,Writing Tests,Language Arts

Development of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), and the creation of the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (Smarter Balanced) and the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC), changes the pattern of accountability testing. These changes raise the question: &quot;How should NAEP's validity and utility be maintained?&quot; The assessments planned by the consortia may be different enough from current state assessments to raise questions as to whether NAEP can continue to play its historic role as an independent monitor or &quot;check&quot; on the validity of state assessments. It is also clear is that computer-based assessment is coming to K-12 education, and both consortia plan to include more varied item types than have been commonly used in the past. Computerization of NAEP is inevitable and already planned by the National Assessment Governing Board. Computerized NAEP assessments may appear more similar to future statewide assessments. Comparability of results can usually be maintained as a test makes the transition from paper-and-pencil to computerized administration, but computerization may have an effect on results for some subgroups of the population. Computerization of NAEP is best approached in the same way as other changes to NAEP assessments have been approached: A bridge study should insure the comparability of results across the transition unless an a priori decision is made to &quot;break trend&quot; regardless. Assessments developed by Smarter Balanced and PARCC may reduce the number of statewide tests to the low single digits, thus making linkage feasible. Associations between the results of disparate educational assessments tend to change over time, so any linkage between the NAEP scale and the consortia statewide tests will need to be maintained regularly. A singular opportunity exists in a short window of time--essentially right now--to design the data collection for linkage between the NAEP scale and the consortia assessments while the latter are under development. Two appendices present: (1) Membership in the PARCC and Smarter Balanced Consortia; and (2) Computer-Based Assessment: A Review of the Last 15 Years of Comparability Research. [For the main report, &quot;Examining the Content and Context of the Common Core State Standards: A First Look at Implications for the National Assessment of Educational Progress,&quot; see ED545237.]
Criterion Validity Evidence for the easyCBM© CCSS Math Measures: Grades 6-8. Technical Report #1402
Author: Anderson, Daniel
Date: 2012-00-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: Curriculum Based Assessment,Mathematics Tests,Validity,Academic Standards,State Standards,Grade 6,Grade 7,Grade 8,Scores,Achievement Tests,Correlation,Regression (Statistics),Response to Intervention

The easyCBM© CCSS Math tests were developed to help inform teachers' instructional decisions by providing relevant information on students' mathematical skills, relative to the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). This technical report describes a study to explore the validity of the easyCBM© CCSS Math tests by evaluating the relation between students' scores on these measures in Grades 6-8, and the Stanford Achievement Test, 10th edition (SAT-10). High correlations between the two would provide evidence for the validity of the easyCBM© CCSS Math Measures, while a low relation would provide evidence that the measures are targeting different constructs and/or functioning differently. We explore the relation between the measures using both correlational and regression analyses. Results suggest a high relation between the measures, adding to the validity evidence for the easyCBM© CCSS Math measures.