ethanporcaro/eric-fulltext-meta huggingface dataset:
Would Having a Lead Instructional Designer Position Encourage Change in a K-12 Educational Setting?
Author: Morris, John
Date: 2011-06-17
Type: Opinion Papers
Subjects: Instructional Design,Change Strategies,Virtual Classrooms,Program Administration,Organizational Change,Leadership Effectiveness,Administrator Role,Administrators,Web Based Instruction,Institutional Mission,Ethics,Technology Planning,School Districts,Business

Adding the position Lead Instructional Designer (LID) will help an educational company or school district to work with principals and instructional designers to implement better instructional design strategies. This type of change creates more jobs and takes added pressure away from schools. The vision is to create better customer service to the families.
Integration of Foreign-Born Faculty in Academia: Foreignness as an Asset
Author: Gahungu, Athanase
Date: 2011-01-04
Type: Information Analyses
Subjects: Immigrants,College Faculty,Literature Reviews,Barriers,Employment Opportunities,Foreign Workers,Interviews,International Education,Guidelines,Teacher Characteristics,Science Education,Engineering Education,Teacher Surveys,Adjustment (to Environment),Cultural Differences,Teacher Attitudes,Federal Legislation

Each year, the U.S. invites thousands of foreign-born and foreign-educated professionals as immigrants and on temporary visas, including academicians. In some academic programs such as science, technology, engineering and mathematics, these foreign-born professionals represent an imposing mass, while in others, they are relatively invisible. This review of literature explored issues of obstacles and opportunities for foreign-born faculty to become fully integrated in academia, particularly in programs that do not traditionally attract international scholars. In addition to the literature review, e-mail and telephone interviews were conducted with a group of eight foreign-born faculty and administrators to further explore the role of foreign-born faculty in internationalizing and globalizing U.S. campuses. Recommendations are offered for a) institutions of higher education to alleviate the insularity of their campuses and for b) the foreign-born faculty themselves to use their foreignness as an asset. (Contains 5 footnotes and 4 tables.) [This article was published in the Connexions Content Commons and was produced by The Connexions Project. It was also published in the &quot;International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation,&quot; Volume 6, Number 1 (January-March, 2011), ISSN 2155-9635.]
Postsecondary Education Transition: A Summary of the Findings from Two Literature Reviews
Author: Department of Education (ED)
Date: 2010-02-00
Type: Information Analyses
Subjects: Postsecondary Education,Economically Disadvantaged,Literature Reviews,Literacy,Out of School Youth,Limited English Speaking,Adults,Disadvantaged Youth,Community Colleges,Higher Education,Vocational Schools,Adult Education,Vocational Education,Evaluation,Intervention,Adult Basic Education

Some segments of the United States population, such as adults with low literacy skills and disadvantaged youths, face barriers in making the transition into and through postsecondary education, including community college and career training, and these barriers can keep them locked in low-wage jobs. Can transition assistance help them enter and complete postsecondary education? If so, what specific transition interventions are most effective in doing so? To begin to address these questions, the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Vocational and Adult Education (OVAE), commissioned two literature reviews to identify studies examining the nature and effectiveness of interventions designed to ease postsecondary education transition for specific groups: (1) out-of-school youths and adults with low literacy skills and (2) disadvantaged youths, including out-of-school youths, those from economically disadvantaged families, those who underperform academically, and those with disabilities and limited English proficiency. This summary is one of an intended series of three publications that discusses the findings of these literature reviews and their implications for future research and policy development. Criteria for the inclusion of studies and study citations is appended. (Contains 1 table, 1 figure and 15 footnotes.)
The Secretary's Seventh Annual Report on Teacher Quality: A Highly Qualified Teacher in Every Classroom
Author: Office of Postsecondary Education (ED)
Date: 2010-09-00
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: Teacher Effectiveness,Teacher Certification,Beginning Teachers,Educational Policy,Teacher Education Programs,Internet,Educational Quality,Data Collection,Alternative Teacher Certification,Pedagogical Content Knowledge,State Licensing Boards

This seventh report on the quality of America's teacher preparation programs and novice teachers presents data reported to the U.S. Department of Education (the Department) in October 2007 by all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the outlying areas, which include American Samoa, the Federated States of Micronesia, Guam, the Marshall Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands, Palau and the Virgin Islands. Section 207 of Title II of the "Higher Education Act" (HEA), as amended in 1998, required states to report on teacher preparation and licensing. Since 2001, the Department has used a web-based state reporting system to collect data on teacher preparation programs and prospective teachers, as well as states' assessment and licensing of teacher candidates. State certification requirements and policy-related information were also collected. While this report focuses on national and summary data, the individual state reports contain additional information (such as data for individual teacher preparation programs). The report is intended to inform aspiring teachers, the education community, institutions of higher education, Congress, researchers and policymakers about the quality of teacher preparation in America. (Contains 19 tables, 18 figures and 13 footnotes.)
Assessment and Accountability for Recently Arrived and Former Limited English Proficient (LEP) Students: Non-Regulatory Guidance
Author: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (ED)
Date: 2007-05-00
Type: Legal/Legislative/Regulatory Materials
Subjects: Elementary Secondary Education,Federal Legislation,Academic Achievement,School Districts,Guidance,Accountability,Language Proficiency,English (Second Language),Second Language Learning,Reading Achievement,Mathematics Achievement,Achievement Tests,Language Arts,Limited English Speaking,Student Evaluation,Testing Accommodations,Science Tests

In September 2006, the U.S. Department of Education amended the regulations governing programs administered under Title I, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), related to both the assessment of, and State, local educational agency (LEA), and school accountability for, the academic achievement of recently arrived and former limited English proficient (LEP) students. Under Title I of the ESEA, States must include LEP students in their assessments of academic achievement in reading/language arts and mathematics, and must provide LEP students with appropriate accommodations including, to the extent practicable, assessments in the language and form most likely to yield accurate data on what LEP students know and can do in the academic content areas until they have achieved English language proficiency. States must also annually assess LEP students for their English language proficiency. Additionally, beginning with the 2007-2008 school year, States must administer science assessments and include LEP students in those assessments. This guidance does not impose any requirements beyond those in the regulations, which are applicable only to States that choose to implement the flexibility permitted in the regulations. This guidance provides a summary of the provisions included in these regulations related to assessment and accountability for recently arrived and former LEP students and addresses questions that may help clarify how SEAs and LEAs can implement the provisions included in the regulations.
Trends in For-Profit Postsecondary Education: Enrollment, Prices, Student Aid and Outcomes. Trends in Higher Education Series
Author: Baum, Sandy
Date: 2011-00-00
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: Evidence,Educational Finance,Student Financial Aid,Student Characteristics,Trend Analysis,Proprietary Schools,Private Education,Postsecondary Education,Enrollment Trends,Fees,Outcomes of Education,Educational Policy,Graduation Rate,Family Income

This policy brief provides data on enrollments, prices, student characteristics, student aid, and completion rates at for-profit postsecondary institutions. The evidence provided in this paper is intended to inform discussions of the rapid growth of the sector in recent years. (Contains 4 tables, 5 figures and 3 endnotes.)
Who Are the Students Who May Qualify for an Alternate Assessment Based on Modified Academic Achievement Standards (AA-MAS)?: Focus Group Results. Synthesis Report 79
Author: Berndt, Sandra
Date: 2011-01-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: Individualized Education Programs,Eligibility,Alternative Assessment,Focus Groups,Teacher Role,Academic Achievement,At Risk Students,Disabilities,State Departments of Education,Educational Policy,Federal Legislation,State Standards,Access to Education,Inclusion,Regular and Special Education Relationship,Testing Accommodations,Special Needs Students

Beginning in 2007, federal regulations to two major education laws gave state departments of education the option to develop an alternate assessment based on modified achievement standards (AA-MAS) for some students with disabilities. The regulations stated that the AA-MAS was intended for students who were being instructed in the grade-level curriculum but who were not likely to achieve grade-level proficiency in that curriculum during the year of their Individualized Education Program (IEP). This report summarizes the results of educator focus groups conducted by one state in a consortia dedicated to studying AA-MAS eligibility issues. In 2008 and 2009, the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction held three focus groups. In each session, facilitators followed a two-part procedure developed by Berndt and Ebben (2008). First, participants responded to a series of questions about characteristics of students who would be eligible for an AA-MAS, the types of information needed to determine a student's eligibility, and teachers' roles in the decision-making process. Second, small groups of participants examined an AA-MAS fact sheet and clarified their understanding of the language found in federal regulations. Through this process, participants addressed commonly held misperceptions that at-risk students without disabilities could be included in an AA-MAS. In addition, they recognized that students with disabilities needed to be instructed in the grade-level curriculum instead of content from lower grade levels. Finally, participants acknowledged the need for standards-based IEPs to clearly address accommodations and modifications used in instruction as well as in assessments. Based on the results of these focus groups, the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction has planned further professional development opportunities for both special education and general education teachers. (Contains 4 tables and 4 figures.)
Accommodations: Results of a Survey of Alabama Special Education Teachers. Synthesis Report 81
Author: Altman, Jason R.
Date: 2010-11-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: Student Needs,Disabilities,Special Education Teachers,Student Characteristics,Special Education,Academic Accommodations (Disabilities),Testing Accommodations,Decision Making,Student Attitudes,Measures (Individuals),Professional Development,Teacher Surveys,Teacher Attitudes,Educational Legislation,Federal Legislation

This report contains the findings from a survey of 2,336 special education teachers in the state of Alabama on making and implementing decisions about accommodations. Key findings included: (1) When making instructional accommodations decisions 51% of the survey respondents considered student characteristics as an important factor. Only 12% of respondents considered student's performance in the classroom to be an important factor; (2) Almost half of the respondents took into consideration whether instructional accommodations would facilitate access to the curriculum; (3) The respondents were more than twice as likely to consider student characteristics than student needs that impede success in class when determining instructional accommodations; (4) The most frequently provided assessment accommodations were small group/individual administration, administration by student's special education teacher, extended time, and administration in the special education classroom; (5) More than one-third of the teachers considered state policies and guidelines to be an important factor when making assessment accommodations decisions; (6) Student input was rarely considered to be an important factor in the accommodations process by the survey respondents; and (7) Nearly two-thirds of the respondents indicated that the use of an assessment accommodation should correspond to its use as an instructional accommodation. A number of areas of strength were noted in the survey responses provided by this large sample of Alabama special education teachers. The special education teachers who responded to the survey demonstrated overall knowledge of accommodations use, despite the challenging items presented to them. Nevertheless, there is an evident need for professional development on making accommodations decisions and on implementing accommodations for instruction and assessment. Appendices include: (1) Survey Instrument; and (2) Results Disaggregated by Classroom Setting. (Contains 9 figures and 8 tables.)
Developing Common Accommodations Policies: Discussion Points for Consortia. NCEO Brief. Number 2
Author: National Center on Educational Outcomes
Date: 2011-05-00
Type: Collected Works - Serial
Subjects: State Standards,Consortia,Federal Programs,Student Evaluation,Testing Accommodations,Educational Policy,Students,Disabilities,Limited English Speaking,English (Second Language),Second Language Learning,Academic Accommodations (Disabilities),Oral Reading

As the Race-to-the-Top Assessment Consortia develop their assessments, they will need to develop shared accommodations policies to ensure that their tests are used in consistent ways across the participating states. Developing a common set of accommodations policies will require that Consortium members recognize the divergent viewpoints that currently exist in their states on the use and misuse of accommodations. This Brief addresses the need for the Consortia to develop shared accommodations policies. It presents information that shows the variability in use of accommodations and policies across the states within each Consortium. The Brief identifies ways to address the different perspectives on accommodations that underlie this variability, and provides several questions for the Consortia to use as discussion points as they develop their common accommodations policies. (Contains 2 figures and 3 resources.)
Participation and Performance Reporting for the Alternate Assessment Based on Modified Achievement Standards (AA-MAS). Technical Report 58
Author: Albus, Deb
Date: 2011-04-00
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: Alternative Assessment,Accountability,Academic Standards,Statistical Analysis,Participation,Academic Achievement,Academic Accommodations (Disabilities),State Surveys,School Statistics,Research Reports,Outcomes of Education,Educational Assessment,Educational Indicators

This report examines publicly reported participation and performance data for the alternate assessment based on modified achievement standards (AA-MAS). The authors' analysis of these data included all states publicly reporting AA-MAS data, regardless of whether they had received approval to use the results for Title I accountability calculations. Data were examined for school years 2006-07 through 2009-10. Because most states had not yet reported data for 2009-10, the authors focused most of their analyses on 2006-07 (six states with an AA-MAS), 2007-08 (eight states with an AA-MAS), and 2008-09 (eight states with an AA-MAS). Their analysis of AA-MAS participation and performance reporting indicated that most states implementing these assessments were reporting some data publicly. For participation data across years, seven states reported participation data by grade. Most of these states reported numbers of students tested; a few states reported the percent of students tested on the AA-MAS. Three appendices are included. (Contains 13 tables and 12 figures.)
Don't Forget Accommodations! Five Questions to Ask When Moving to Technology-Based Assessments. NCEO Brief. Number 1
Author: National Center on Educational Outcomes
Date: 2011-04-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Second Language Learning,English (Second Language),Limited English Speaking,Academic Accommodations (Disabilities),Computer Assisted Testing,Student Evaluation,Disabilities,Decision Making

Accommodations are an important part of paper and pencil testing. They give students with disabilities and English language learners (ELLs) access to the assessment and provide results that have greater validity for those students. This Brief addresses the need to think carefully about accommodations when moving from paper-based assessments to technology-based assessments. It highlights questions to ask and introduces topics needing clarification by the Consortia. Among the topics are determining which embedded features are available and to whom, which embedded features are to be called accommodations, and which accommodations are still needed that cannot be embedded. (Contains 1 figure, 5 resources and 2 footnotes.)
Economics in History: What Every High School Student and Teacher Needs to Know. Footnotes. Volume 15, Number 8
Author: Ellington, Lucien
Date: 2011-01-00
Type: Information Analyses
Subjects: Foreign Countries,World History,Economic Research,State Standards,Conflict,National Standards,Historians,History Instruction,Textbooks,United States History,European History,Asian History,Historical Interpretation,Historiography,Economics,Misconceptions,Free Enterprise System,Economics Education,Secondary School Curriculum

Historians work in a discipline with few inherent concepts and are obliged to draw upon many fields in recreating the past. Yet authors of most school history texts, state and national standards and curriculum materials seldom incorporate economic analysis in their work. Just look at state standards that include Adam Smith and John Locke but draw no connections between their economic thought and contemporary institutions, to world history texts that treat the British Industrial Revolution as a virtual crime against humanity. This essay's objective is to integrate an economic perspective into five common topics that are taught, depending upon the course, in every world or U.S. history survey class; Ancient Greece and Rome, Imperial China, Colonial English America, the British Industrial Revolution, and the U.S. depression of the 1930s. An annotated list of pedagogical resources for topics is also included along with general resources. (Contains 1 table.)
Linking Assessment and Instruction: Teacher Preparation and Professional Development. TQ Connection Issue Paper
Author: Hosp, John L.
Date: 2010-12-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Preservice Teachers,Inservice Teacher Education,Student Evaluation,Elementary Secondary Education,Federal Legislation,Innovation,Data Analysis,Professional Development,Grants,Guidelines,Teacher Evaluation,Educational Improvement,Teacher Effectiveness

The purpose of this Issue Paper is to provide a framework and justification for effective ways that teachers can collect and use assessment data to make instructional decisions. This framework is provided as an indication of what effective linking of assessment data to instructional decisions &quot;ought&quot; to look like--rather than a summary or survey of current practices. The framework and respective Innovation Configuration for Linking Assessment and Instruction in Teacher Preparation and Professional Development (provided in the Appendix, pages 31-34) are primarily designed to provide a blueprint for preservice teacher preparation; however, they also may be used as an evaluation rubric or development guide for inservice professional development. Although many schools and districts may not currently have in place the practices discussed in this Issue Paper, these practices are strongly endorsed by the requirements of the 2002 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)--also known as the No Child Left Behind Act--and the competitive grants to states that were made available through the Race to the Top Fund. This paper begins with a discussion of why assessment and instruction should be linked. It continues with an overview of the innovation configuration, describing essential components in preservice and inservice teacher training to identify the skills and competencies that teachers need to make sound decisions about using assessment information to improve instruction. Next, the major points within the innovation configuration are provided, with a rationale for their importance and elaboration of some of their core characteristics. Last, recommendations are provided regarding how the components of the innovation configuration might be included in teacher preparation and professional development practices. (Contains 2 figures.)
A Practical Guide to Designing Comprehensive Teacher Evaluation Systems: A Tool to Assist in the Development of Teacher Evaluation Systems
Author: Goe, Laura
Date: 2011-05-00
Type: Guides - Non-Classroom
Subjects: Feedback (Response),Teacher Effectiveness,Evaluators,Teacher Evaluation,Integrity,Educational Change,Teaching Methods,Academic Achievement,Educational Improvement,Accountability,School District Autonomy,School Districts,Outcomes of Education,Models,Interrater Reliability,Tenure,Validity,Reliability

Across the nation, states and districts are in the process of building better teacher evaluation systems that not only identify highly effective teachers but also systematically provide data and feedback that can be used to improve teacher practice. &quot;A Practical Guide to Designing Comprehensive Teacher Evaluation Systems&quot; is a tool designed to assist states and districts in constructing high-quality teacher evaluation systems in an effort to improve teaching and learning. This tool is not a step-by-step guide to devising a teacher evaluation system. Rather, it is intended to facilitate discussion and promote coherence in the development process. The guide begins with an overview of the factors influencing teacher evaluation reform today and continues with a discussion of approaches to balancing state accountability and district autonomy. The next section of the guide is structured around the following essential components of the design process as supported through research: (1) Component 1: Specifying Evaluation System Goals; (2) Component 2: Securing and Sustaining Stakeholder Investment and Cultivating a Strategic Communication Plan; (3) Component 3: Selecting Measures; (4) Component 4: Determining the Structure of the Evaluation System; (5) Component 5: Selecting and Training Evaluators; (6) Component 6: Ensuring Data Integrity and Transparency; (7) Component 7: Using Teacher Evaluation Results; and (8) Component 8: Evaluating the System. Each subsection includes an overview of the component, resources and practical examples, and a series of guiding questions designed to help states organize their work and move strategically toward an evaluation system that functions to improve student learning and teacher performance. A summary of measures is appended. (Contains 2 tables.)