ethanporcaro/eric-fulltext-meta huggingface dataset:
K-8 Publishers' Criteria for the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics
Author: Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO)
Date: 2012-07-20
Type: Tests/Questionnaires
Subjects: Common Core State Standards,Elementary School Mathematics,Program Implementation,Mathematics Curriculum,Alignment (Education),Educational Objectives,Mathematics Instruction,Selection Criteria,Instructional Material Evaluation,Teaching Guides,Middle Schools,Selection Tools

This document, developed by the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics (CCSSM) writing team, aims to support faithful CCSSM implementation by providing criteria for materials aligned to the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics. These criteria are an attempt to sharpen the question of how alignment should be judged, and to make alignment and misalignment more clearly visible. This document discusses focus, coherence, and rigor in the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics, as well as criteria for materials and tools aligned to the standards. Recommendations for using the criteria are included. The following are appended: (1) &quot;The Structure is the Standards&quot; (Phil Daro, William McCallum, and Jason Zimba 2012); and (2) Sample Rubric.
2012/14 Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study: (BPS:12/14). Supporting Statement Part A. Request for OMB Review. OMB #1850-0631 v.8. Revised May 28, 2014
Author: National Center for Education Statistics (ED)
Date: 2014-05-28
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: College Students,Postsecondary Education,Longitudinal Studies,Data Collection,Cohort Analysis,Academic Persistence,Educational Attainment,Enrollment,Student Experience,Student Employment,Student Financial Aid,Expectation,Education Work Relationship,Interviews,Student Surveys,Online Surveys,Duplication,Consultants,Incentives,Confidentiality,Costs

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), within the U.S. Department of Education (ED), Institute of Education Sciences, is requesting clearance for data collection materials and procedures for the full-scale collection of the 2012/14 Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study (BPS:12/14) first follow-up, including the student interview and panel maintenance activities. In 2013, NCES received clearance of the BPS:12/14 field test data collection that was conducted in the spring of 2013. The materials to be used in the main study are based upon those that were approved in February 2013 for the field test data collections (OMB# 1850-0631 v.7). With that submission, NCES adequately justified the need for and overall practical utility of the full study as proposed and an overarching plan for the phases of the data collection over the next 3 years, and provided as much detail on the measures to be used as was available at the time of the submission. OMB approved the initial phase of this collection in February 2013, and now NCES published a notice in the Federal Register allowing a 30-day public comment period on the details of the subsequent study components (full-scale first follow-up) described in this submission. The BPS longitudinal study is designed to follow a cohort of students who enroll in postsecondary education for the first time during the 2011/12 academic year, irrespective of date of high school completion. The study collects student data on persistence in, and completion of, postsecondary education programs; their transition to employment; demographic characteristics; and changes over time in their goals, marital status, income, and debt, among other indicators. Data from BPS are used to help researchers and policymakers better understand how financial aid influences persistence and completion, what percentages of students complete various degree programs, what employment and wage outcomes are for certificate and degree attainers, and why students leave school. Includes a list of appendices that are not included in this document. [This study was conducted with the assistance of consultants Dr. Cynthia Decker and Andrea Sykes.]
What We Know about Developmental Education Outcomes. Research Overview
Author: Jaggars, Shanna Smith
Date: 2014-01-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: Developmental Programs,High School Graduates,Community Colleges,Remedial Programs,Program Effectiveness,Program Evaluation,Outcomes of Education,Relevance (Education),Cohort Analysis,Academic Achievement,Student Placement,Program Costs

Many recent high school graduates who enter community college are required to take remedial or developmental education courses before enrolling in college-level courses. Developmental courses essentially reteach high school- and junior high school-level content in reading, writing, and math. In some cases, students are referred to two or even three courses of developmental education in a single subject area. The annual cost of providing remediation to community college students nationwide has been estimated at approximately $7 billion. Only 28 percent of community college students who take a developmental education course go on to earn a degree within eight years, and many students assigned to developmental courses drop out before completing their sequence and enrolling in college-level courses. A number of rigorous studies have been undertaken to assess the extent to which the traditional system of developmental education helps students into and through college-level coursework. These studies are discussed in this report.
What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and Standards Handbook, Version 2.1
Author: What Works Clearinghouse (ED)
Date: 2011-09-00
Type: Guides - Non-Classroom
Subjects: Standards,Access to Information,Information Management,Guides,Research Methodology,Role,Intervention,Reports,Evaluation Methods,Attrition (Research Studies),Effect Size,Computation,Statistical Significance,Statistical Analysis,Comparative Analysis,Regression (Statistics),Case Studies,Rating Scales,Classification,Randomized Controlled Trials,Quasiexperimental Design

With its critical assessments of scientific evidence on the effectiveness of education programs, policies, and practices (referred to as &quot;interventions&quot;), and a range of products summarizing this evidence, the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) is an important part of the Institute of Education Sciences' strategy to use rigorous and relevant research, evaluation and statistics to improve our nation's education system. The mission of the WWC is to be a central and trusted source of scientific evidence for what works in education. Without a service like the What Works Clearinghouse, it can be difficult, time-consuming, and costly for educators to access the relevant studies and reach sound conclusions about the effectiveness of particular interventions. Educators who want to know whether a particular intervention is effective can read a WWC Intervention Report and know that it represents both a thorough review of the identified research literature on that intervention and a critical assessment and summary of the evidence reported by the study authors. In this version of the Handbook, pilot standards for judging the conditions under which studies using regression discontinuity or single-case designs meet WWC standards for causal validity have been added. As the WWC continues to refine processes, develop new standards, and create new products, the Handbook will be revised or augmented to reflect these changes. Chapter I describes the roles of those who contribute to the topic area reviews, along with details on participating organizations and conflicts of interest. Chapter II provides guidelines for identifying topic areas, research and interventions to develop intervention reports. Chapter III explains the review process. Chapter IV describes the types of intervention reports, the process of preparing the report, components of the intervention report, the rating system used to determine the evidence rating, and the metrics and computations used to aggregate and present the evidence. Appended are: (1) Assessing Attrition Bias; (2) Effect Size Computations; (3) Clustering Correction of the Statistical Significance of Effects Estimated with Mismatched Analyses; (4) Benjamini-Hochberg Correction of the Statistical Significance of Effects Estimated with Multiple Comparisons; (5) Pilot Standards for Regression Discontinuity Designs; (6) Pilot Standards for Single-Case Designs; (7) Intervention Rating Scheme; (8) Computation of the Improvement Index; and (9) Extent of Evidence Categorization. [See ED503772 to view previous version of this guide.]
Relationship between School Professional Climate and Teachers' Satisfaction with the Evaluation Process. REL 2016-133
Author: Lacireno-Paquet, Natalie
Date: 2016-05-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: Work Environment,Satisfaction,Teacher Evaluation,Teacher Attitudes,Leadership,Principals,Teacher Influence,School Policy,Teacher Surveys,Public School Teachers,National Surveys,Elementary Secondary Education,Teacher Characteristics,Institutional Characteristics,Scores,Academic Achievement

Recent changes in the policy environment have led states and districts in the Regional Educational Laboratory (REL) Northeast &amp; Islands Region to increase the rigor of their teacher evaluation systems by including more frequent observations or student test score data. States and districts nationwide began reforming their evaluation systems as early as 2006 and were further spurred to action by federal programs such as the Teacher Incentive Fund and the 2009 Race to the Top grant program. This study examined associations between teachers' perceptions of school professional climate and their satisfaction with the evaluation process. It used the responses of a nationally representative sample of teachers from four linked questionnaires from the National Center for Education Statistics 2011/12 Schools and Staffing Survey and 2012/13 Teacher Follow-up Survey. Key findings are: (1) Most teachers reported being satisfied with the evaluation process: 79 percent reported strongly agreeing or somewhat agreeing that they were satisfied with the teacher evaluation process in the previous year; (2) Teachers reported positive perceptions of their principal's leadership but perceived themselves to have little influence over school policies. On average, teachers somewhat agreed that their principal provides positive leadership (mean of 3.1 on a scale of 1, strongly disagree, to 4, strongly agree) but that they had minor influence over school policies (mean of 2.2 on a scale of 1, no influence, to 4, great deal of influence); (3) Of the two concepts used to measure school professional climate--principal leadership and teacher influence--only principal leadership was associated with teachers' satisfaction with the evaluation process. Teachers with more positive perceptions of their principal's leadership were more likely to be satisfied with the evaluation process; (4) Teachers who were rated at the highest level on their evaluation in 2011/12 expressed more satisfaction with the evaluation process that year than teachers who were rated at lower levels; and (5) Teachers whose evaluation process included student test scores were 2.5 times less likely to be satisfied with the evaluation process than teachers whose evaluation process did not include student test scores. The following are appended: (1) Literature review; (2) Data sources and study methods; and (3) Supplementary tables and analyses.
Documentation to the NCES Common Core of Data Local Education Agency Universe Survey: School Year 2010-11. Version Provisional 2a. NCES 2012-337rev
Author: Keaton, Patrick
Date: 2012-09-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Elementary Secondary Education,Data Collection,National Surveys,Public Schools,Institutional Characteristics,Student Characteristics,Records (Forms),Tables (Data)

The Common Core of Data (CCD) nonfiscal surveys consist of data submitted annually to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) by state education agencies (SEAs) in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the four U.S. Island Areas (American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands), the Department of Defense Education Activity (DoDEA), and the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE). The purpose of the CCD nonfiscal surveys is to provide a listing of all schools (103,813 in 2010-11) and agencies (18,478 in 2010-11) 2 that provide free public elementary and secondary education in the United States and its jurisdictions, along with basic descriptive statistical information on each school and agency listed. The CCD system provides variables that enable the data provider and the data user to identify and select records according to the categories of interest to them. The Local Education Agency Universe data file includes the following variables: NCES agency ID number, state agency ID number, agency name, phone number, mailing address, physical location address, agency type code, supervisory union number, American National Standards Institute (ANSI) state and county code, county name, core based statistical area (CBSA) code, metropolitan/micropolitan code, metropolitan status code, district locale code, congressional district code, operational status code, BIE agency status, low/high grade span offered, agency charter status, number of schools, number of full-time-equivalent (FTE) teachers, number of ungraded students, number of PK-12 students, number of special education/Individualized Education Program (IEP) students, number of English language learner (ELL) students, instructional staff fields, support staff fields, and a flag indicating whether student counts by race/ethnicity were reported by five or seven racial/ethnic categories. The document contains a user's guide and four appendices: (1) Record Layout for the Common Core of Data Local Education Agency Universe Survey: School Year 2010-11; (2) Value Distribution, Field Frequencies, and Data Tables for the Common Core of Data Local Education Agency Universe Survey: School Year 2010-11; (3) Glossary for the Common Core of Data: School Year 2010-11; and (4) State Notes for the Common Core of Data: School Year 2010-11.
Educator Evaluation and the Use of the Early Warning Indicator System (EWIS). Updated September 9, 2013
Author: Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Date: 2013-09-09
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: School Statistics,Progress Monitoring,Educational Indicators,Teacher Evaluation,At Risk Students,Student Records,Elementary Secondary Education

The Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education first released the Early Warning Indicator System (EWIS) data for grades 1-12 in the 2012-13 school year. The Department created the EWIS in direct response to educators' requests for early indicator data across multiple grade levels. The EWIS is a &quot;tool to systematically identify students that may need additional attention in order to reach an upcoming academic goal&quot; (expected student outcome). The EWIS was developed by looking at the actual outcomes of Massachusetts students in prior years and statistically validating a wide range of student level data to best predict whether current students are on track to meet upcoming academic goals. The information provided in this document may be helpful as districts continue to roll out educator evaluation systems aligned to the Massachusetts Educator Evaluation Framework.
Colorado Growth Model--Brief Report: Student Growth Percentiles and FRL Status. Accountability &amp; Data Analysis Unit
Author: Colorado Department of Education
Date: 2013-11-20
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: Socioeconomic Status,Lunch Programs,Academic Achievement,Achievement Gains,Elementary Secondary Education,Mathematics Achievement,Reading Achievement,Writing Achievement,Statistical Analysis,Instructional Program Divisions,Comparative Analysis,Nonparametric Statistics,Correlation,Statistical Significance

This report examines the relationship between socioeconomic status, as defined by a free-and-reduced lunch proxy variable, and student growth percentiles by elementary, middle, and high school grade levels for math, reading, and writing. Comparisons were made between median growth percentiles for each educational level by free and reduced lunch status (i.e. using Mann-Whitney &quot;U&quot;-tests). As a final measure of relationship, point-biserial correlations were calculated between student growth percentiles and free-reduced lunch eligibility status. The results of this descriptive analysis reveal consistent differences in median and adequate growth percentiles between free/reduced and not free/reduced lunch eligible students for all content areas and grade levels. The median growth percentiles tend to be lower for free lunch students compared to non-eligible students. Similarly, the adequate growth percentiles tend to be greater for free and reduced lunch students. This finding indicates that not only are free-reduced students displaying lower growth percentiles, but they are also requiring substantially higher growth rates to maintain or reach proficiency within three years or by 10th grade. Future reports will examine other demographic factors that may be related to observed student growth percentiles.
Teacher Incentive Fund; Notice Inviting Applications for New Awards for Fiscal Year (FY) 2010; Rule and Notice. Federal Register, Part III. Department of Education, 34 CFR Subtitle B, Chapter II
Author: Melendez de Santa Ana, Thelma
Date: 2010-05-21
Type: Legal/Legislative/Regulatory Materials
Subjects: Federal Programs,Incentives,Merit Pay,Teacher Salaries,Grants,Federal Aid,Competition,Selection Criteria,Federal Regulation,Academic Achievement,Responsibility,Leadership Role,Teacher Effectiveness,Principals,School Personnel,Elementary Secondary Education

The Secretary of Education (Secretary) establishes priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria under the Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF) program. These priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria will be used in two separate and distinct TIF grant competitions: The Main TIF competition, which will provide TIF funding to eligible entities to support their implementation of a performance-based compensation system (PBCS) in accordance with the priorities, the Main TIF competition requirements, the definitions, and the selection criteria established in this document; and the TIF Evaluation competition, which will provide, in accordance with the priorities, the Main TIF competition requirements, the definitions, and the selection criteria, as well as the Evaluation requirements established in this document, TIF funding to help pay the costs of implementing the eligible entity's PBCS in exchange for an agreement to participate in the national evaluation. The Secretary may use these TIF priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria in fiscal year (FY) 2010 and subsequent years. They intend the priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria announced in this document will help improve student achievement (as defined in this document) in high-need schools (as defined in this document) and provide incentives for effective teachers, principals, and other personnel (in those sites in which the grantee wishes to expand the PBCS to additional staff in its schools) in these schools to take on additional responsibilities and leadership roles.
Using a Response to Intervention Framework to Improve Student Learning: A Pocket Guide for State and District Leaders. Implementing ESEA Flexibility Plans
Author: McInerney, Maurice
Date: 2013-05-00
Type: Guides - Non-Classroom
Subjects: Response to Intervention,Program Implementation,Federal Legislation,Educational Legislation,Elementary Secondary Education,Accountability,Educational Improvement,Academic Achievement,Reading Achievement,Mathematics Achievement,Educational Change,College Readiness,Career Readiness,Instructional Effectiveness,Compliance (Legal),Educational Planning,Educational Policy,Educational Practices,Evidence Based Practice,School Turnaround

The 2002 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) contained provisions that expanded state and district accountability for improving all schools and increasing the learning and achievement of all students, including those who struggle to master basic skills in reading and mathematics. In 2011, the U.S. Department of Education waived certain provisions of the law in exchange for reforms by states related to four principles: (1) achieving college- and career-ready expectations for all students; (2) developing differentiated recognition, accountability, and support systems; (3) supporting effective instruction and leadership; and (4) reducing duplication and unnecessary burden. As of December 2012, the U.S. Department of Education had approved the flexibility plans of 35 states (including the District of Columbia). American Institutes for Research (AIR) has developed a series of Pocket Guides that provide research-based information to support state and district leaders in implementing ESEA flexibility plans. This particular Pocket Guide focuses on the implementation of reforms that feature applications of a research-based framework for response to intervention (RTI) to address the flexibility plan requirements. To prepare this guide, AIR researchers reviewed the 35 approved flexibility plans to identify policies and practices relevant to the use of a research-based RTI framework to improve student learning and achievement. This guide (1) explains the essential components of RTI; (2) describes the requirements for Principle 2; (3) discusses how applications of a research-based RTI framework address Principle 2 in approved plans; and (4) provides considerations, based on knowledge of rigorous RTI research, for the implementation of research-based RTI frameworks to address proposed reforms. The guide offers additional resources for states and districts that are interested in implementing a research-based framework.
Reference Performance Level Descriptors: Outcome of a National Working Session on Defining an &quot;English Proficient&quot; Performance Standard
Author: Cook, H. Gary
Date: 2014-01-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Language Proficiency,English Language Learners,Academic Standards,Performance,Oral Language,Written Language,Expressive Language,Receptive Language

This document is the second in a series of working papers that elaborate on a framework of four key stages in moving toward a common definition of English learner (EL), as described in the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) publication, &quot;Toward a 'Common Definition of English Learner': Guidance for States and State Assessment Consortia in Defining and Addressing Policy and Technical Issues and Options&quot; (Linquanti &amp; Cook 2013). This working paper addresses a key aspect of the CCSSO guidance document's third stage--defining an &quot;English proficient&quot; performance standard. It presents a set of Reference Performance Level Descriptors developed as a result of guidance provided at a national working session of state and consortium representatives, experts, and stakeholders held on September 17, 2013 at the Washington, D.C. offices of CCSSO. An appendix contains a list of participants and the institutions they represented.