ethanporcaro/eric-fulltext-meta huggingface dataset:
Five Steps for Structuring Data-Informed Conversations and Action in Education. REL 2013-001
Author: Kekahio, Wendy
Date: 2013-09-00
Type: Guides - Non-Classroom
Subjects: Research Utilization,Data Analysis,Strategic Planning,Decision Making,Data Collection,Academic Achievement,Research Design,Long Range Planning,Information Sources,Educational Research,Observation,Evaluation Utilization,Research Methodology,Goal Orientation,Program Effectiveness,Evaluation Methods,Teamwork

Using data strategically to guide decisions and actions can have a positive effect on education practices and processes. This facilitation guide shows education data teams how to move beyond simply reporting data to applying data to direct strategic action. Using guiding questions, suggested activities, and activity forms, this guide provides education data teams with a framework and the tools and vocabulary needed to support an informed conversation around the data they generate or acquire. The guide walks data teams through five key steps in using data for informed decision making and strategic action: setting the stage, examining the data, understanding the findings, developing an action plan, and monitoring progress and measuring success. This guide provides grade-, school-, and state-level education data teams--composed of teachers, administrators, staff, and other stakeholders--with steps, sample questions, and resources for using data more systematically and rigorously in education decision making. Data teams can print out the templates in this guide and use them to direct their own data-informed conversations. (Contains 2 boxes, 2 tables, 1 figure, and 6 templates.) [This report was prepared for the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) by Regional Educational Laboratory Pacific administered by Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning.]
WWC Review of the Report &quot;A Big Apple for Educators: New York City&apos;s Experiment with Schoolwide Performance Bonuses. Final Evaluation Report.&quot; What Works Clearinghouse Single Study Review
Author: What Works Clearinghouse (ED)
Date: 2013-09-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: Urban Schools,Comparative Analysis,Intervention,Program Effectiveness,Program Evaluation,Reading Achievement,Mathematics Achievement,Poverty,Incentives,Public Schools,At Risk Students,Goal Orientation,Financial Support,Unions,Teacher Competencies,Low Achievement

The study examined in this paper focuses on whether monetary bonuses for teachers improved schoolwide academic achievement in New York City public schools. Study authors analyzed data from 389 high-need elementary, middle, and high schools in New York City in the first year of the bonus program (2007-08) and from 371 of those same schools in the second (2008-09) and third (2009-10) years. These schools had been randomly assigned to either an intervention or a comparison group in 2007-08. The researchers assessed the effectiveness of the bonus program by comparing the scores on the New York City Department of Education's (NYCDOE) Progress Reports for schools randomly assigned to the intervention group with those of the comparison group. The primary research question for this study is &quot;what is the impact of the performance bonus program on schoolwide achievement?&quot; The analysis sample included some schools that were eligible to participate in the bonus program but did not ultimately participate. Therefore, the study estimated the effect of being eligible to participate in the program, regardless of actual participation. The study found that the New York City Schoolwide Performance Bonus Program had no discernible impact on school Progress Report scores. The study is a well-implemented randomized controlled trial. Because this study examined school-level outcomes, the reported effect sizes are not comparable to effect sizes calculated for student-level analyses. The following are appended: (1) Study details; (2) Outcome measures for the academic achievement domain; (3) Study findings for Year 1; (4) Study findings for Year 2; and (5) Study findings for Year 3. A glossary of terms is included. (Contains 2 endnotes.) [The following study is the focus of this &quot;Single Study Review&quot;: Marsh, J. A., Springer, M. G., McCaffrey, D. F., Yuan, K., Epstein, S., Koppich, J., Kalra, N., DiMartino, C., Peng, A. (2011). &quot;A big apple for educators: New York City's experiment with schoolwide performance bonuses. Final evaluation report.&quot; Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.]
Can Online Learning Communities Achieve the Goals of Traditional Professional Learning Communities? What the Literature Says. Summary. REL 2013-003
Author: Blitz, Cynthia L.
Date: 2013-09-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Communities of Practice,Educational Technology,Computer Uses in Education,Computer Mediated Communication,Professional Development,Teacher Collaboration,Internet,Telecommunications,Program Effectiveness,Best Practices,Models,Teacher Influence,Learner Engagement,Achievement Gains,Cooperation,Group Dynamics,Teacher Participation,Meta Analysis,Teacher Improvement,Teacher Motivation

Professional learning communities (PLCs)--teams of educators who get together regularly to exchange ideas--have sprung up to meet school districts' growing interest in promoting professional development that engages teachers and administrators. PLCs meet to develop lesson plans, monitor student progress, assess instructional effectiveness, and identify professional learning needs. The ultimate goal is to raise student achievement by adapting teaching and classroom practices based on learning and interchanges during PLC meetings. The Internet and mobile communication technologies have greatly expanded opportunities for teams of educators to reflect and collaborate with each other and experts outside their schools--and even outside their districts--for learning, joint lesson planning, and problem solving. These electronic platforms provide ready access to knowledge and resources without the usual limitations of time, space, and pace. Hybrid PLCs combine online interactions with the face-to-face interactions of traditional PLCs. This review of the literature on online PLCs responds to a request from district and school administrators in the Regional Educational Laboratory Mid-Atlantic Region for information on using online PLCs to engage their teachers in professional development. The review looked at advantages, challenges, and emerging best practices. [This report was prepared for the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) by Regional Educational Laboratory Mid-Atlantic administered by ICF International. For the full report, see ED544210.]
Synthesis of IES Research on Early Intervention and Early Childhood Education. NCSER 2013-3001
Author: Diamond, Karen E.
Date: 2013-07-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: Early Childhood Education,Early Intervention,Meta Analysis,Cognitive Development,Academic Achievement,Social Development,Language Acquisition,Emergent Literacy,Mathematics Instruction,Science Instruction,Emotional Development,Professional Development,Teacher Improvement,Program Effectiveness,Teaching Methods,Teacher Influence,Preschool Teachers,Classroom Environment,At Risk Students,Student Evaluation,Evaluation Methods,Educational Quality,Curriculum,Parent Participation,Preschool Children,Peer Influence,Thinking Skills,Oral Reading,Decoding (Reading),Deafness,Hearing Impairments,Behavior Problems,Response to Intervention,Kindergarten,Educational Technology

A primary purpose of early childhood education and interventions is to promote children's acquisition of knowledge and skills linked to later social competence and academic success. In this report, special attention is given to summarizing what has been learned about early childhood classrooms as contexts for development and learning, the kinds of instructional practices and curricula that appear to be efficacious for enhancing children's development and learning, the ways in which children's skills and learning can be reliably and validly documented, and approaches for improving teachers' and other practitioners' (e.g., speech, occupational, or physical therapists) instruction, given hypothesized linkages between instructional quality, instructional effectiveness and children's learning. For this research synthesis peer-reviewed journal articles and chapters that were products of early childhood research projects funded by the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) from 2002 through 2008 were examined. These papers included both empirical studies as well as theoretical pieces. The task was to synthesize what has been learned thus far through IES early childhood research grant activities. This is not a typical synthesis intended to provide a grand overview of research in a field, nor is it a meta-analysis that quantitatively synthesizes a specific body of work. Rather, the task was to look across the range of projects that IES has funded to determine what has been learned and where progress has been made as a result of IES funding, and to provide suggestions for further research in early childhood education. (IES-Supported Research Projects and related Publications included in this Synthesis are appended.) (Contains 157 footnotes.)
Forum Guide to the Teacher-Student Data Link: A Technical Implementation Resource. NFES 2013-802
Author: National Forum on Education Statistics (ED)
Date: 2013-06-00
Type: Guides - Non-Classroom
Subjects: Data Collection,Data Analysis,Educational Research,Research Utilization,Governance,Educational Policy,State Policy,Privacy,Professional Development,Feedback (Response),Program Evaluation,Teacher Education Programs,Teacher Placement,Compliance (Legal),Teacher Evaluation,Teacher Salaries,Teacher Influence,Accountability,Course Selection (Students),Teacher Effectiveness,Teacher Competencies,Board of Education Policy,Student Records,Access to Information,Audits (Verification),Policy Formation,Federal Legislation,Teachers,Students

This document is intended to serve as a practical guide for implementing a teacher-student data link (TSDL) that supports a range of uses at the local, regional, and state levels. The guide addresses the considerations for linking teacher and student data from multiple perspectives, including governance, policies, data components, business rules, system requirements, and practices. It provides references to promising practices for high quality data linkages, including TSDL-specific processes such as roster verification and the establishment of the Teacher of Record. To meet the needs of practitioners, sections within the guide are organized around a range of uses of the TSDL and related implementation considerations for each use scenario. This guide highlights thoughtful advice and emerging practices to help state education agency (SEA) and local education agency (LEA) staff implement the TSDL in a responsible manner--and ultimately generate high quality data for high-stakes decision making. The primary audience of this guide includes all of the individuals charged with implementing the TSDL or using TSDL data in SEAs and LEAs, including policymakers, data management professionals, program staff, curriculum coordinators, technology coordinators, superintendents, and educators. Because some readers may wish to focus on the implementation of TSDL within a specific use scenario, this online publication will include links for navigating directly to the use case sections. The following are appended: (1) Emerging Learning Systems; (2) Prior Work Related to the Teacher-Student Data Link; (3) Examples of State Policies Related to the Teacher-Student Data Link; (4) Typical Structure of the TSDL in the Local Source System; (5) Lifecycle of Teacher-Student Data for Student Growth Attribution; (6) Summary Matrix: Considerations Across TSDL Uses; (7) Referenced Federal Legislation; and (8) Related Resources. (Contains 4 figures and 75 footnotes.) [This publication was prepared in cooperation with Quality Information Partners, Inc.]
Common Guidelines for Education Research and Development
Author: Institute of Education Sciences (ED)
Date: 2013-08-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: STEM Education,Research and Development,Intervention,Educational Improvement,Educational Research,Learning,Research Methodology,Program Effectiveness,Program Evaluation,Program Development,Program Implementation,Research Design,Feedback (Response),Theories,Educational Practices,Proposal Writing,Educational Objectives,Meta Analysis,Knowledge Level,Biology,Professional Development

In January 2011, a Joint Committee of representatives from the U.S. Department of Education (ED) and the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) began work to establish cross-agency guidelines for improving the quality, coherence, and pace of knowledge development in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education. Although the starting place for the committee was research in STEM, ED quickly realized the broader applicability of the guidelines to other content areas in which it funds research and development. The Joint Committee examined whether the agencies' expectations for the research studies they fund could be characterized in such a way as to provide cross-agency guidance for program officers, prospective grantees, and peer reviewers. Second, the Joint Committee specified how the types of research relate to one another and described the theoretical and empirical basis needed to justify each research type. Through this document, the Joint Committee seeks to provide a broad framework that clarifies research types and provides basic guidance about the purpose, justification, design features, and expected outcomes from various research types. In that spirit, the Joint Committee intends this to be a &quot;living document&quot; that may be adapted by agencies or divisions within agencies in response to their needs and opportunities. Over time, the framework may be elaborated or rearranged according to agency focus and assessments of the needs of education researchers and practitioners. Two appendixes present: (1) Illustrative Research Projects Funded by the Department of Education or the National Science Foundation; and (2) Common Guidelines, by Research Type. (Contains 9 tables.)
The Inclusion of Students with Disabilities in School Accountability Systems: An Update. NCEE 2013-4017
Author: Harr-Robins, Jenifer
Date: 2013-10-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: Disabilities,Accountability,Federal Legislation,Educational Legislation,Educational Improvement,Academic Achievement,Educational Assessment,Educational Indicators,Federal Programs,Inclusion,High Schools,Middle Schools,Elementary Schools,Rural Schools,Urban Schools,Special Education,Public Schools,Charter Schools,Elementary Secondary Education,Enrollment

Formerly excluded from measures of educational performance, students with disabilities (SWDs) are now explicitly recognized in federal and state accountability systems. At the national level, the 1997 amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) laid the foundation for accountability for SWDs by requiring states to include these students in state and district assessments and to report their participation and performance. This requirement was further reinforced by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as reauthorized in 2001, which established SWDs as an explicit student subgroup for the purpose of determining whether schools make adequate yearly progress (AYP). The Institute of Education Sciences (IES) of the U.S. Department of Education (ED) has a congressional mandate to conduct a national assessment of how well the IDEA is achieving its purposes. As part of the national assessment of IDEA, this study is intended to provide policy-relevant information about the education of SWDs by examining their inclusion in school accountability systems and by describing the use of school practices that may relate to educational outcomes for these students. This report presents descriptive information on school-level accountability, AYP performance, and school improvement status of schools accountable for SWD subgroup performance under Title I of the ESEA, as well as schools not accountable for SWD subgroup performance. The association between accountability for this student subgroup and school practices will be examined in a separate study report. Specifically, this study report updates the findings from the interim report for the following research questions: (1) What percentage of schools were accountable for the performance of the SWD subgroup between the 2006-07 and 2009-10 school years? (2) What percentage of different types of schools were accountable for the performance of the SWD subgroup? (3) What percentage of schools moved in and out of accountability for the performance of the SWD subgroup? (4) What percentage of schools missed AYP because of the performance of the SWD subgroup? and (5) What percentage of schools accountable for SWD subgroup performance were identified for school improvement? Thirteen tables are appended. (Contains 51 footnotes and 28 exhibits.)
U.S. States in a Global Context: Results from the 2011 NAEP-TIMSS Linking Study. NCES 2013-460
Author: National Center for Education Statistics (ED)
Date: 2013-10-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: National Competency Tests,Grade 8,Mathematics Tests,Science Tests,Comparative Testing,Scores,Testing Programs,Benchmarking,Foreign Countries,Achievement Tests,Mathematics Achievement,Science Achievement

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) initiated this special study in an effort to link the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) scale to the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) scale so that states could compare the performance of their students with that of students in other countries. The study was conducted in 2011 with eighth grade students in all 52 states/jurisdictions that participated in the NAEP mathematics and science assessments. This highlights report presents results of the linking study. (Contains 14 tables, 5 footnotes, and 10 figures.)
High School Longitudinal Study of 2009 (HSLS:09) First Follow-Up: A First Look at Fall 2009 Ninth-Graders in 2012. NCES 2014-360
Author: Ingels, Steven J.
Date: 2013-10-00
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: Longitudinal Studies,Grade 9,High School Students,Mathematics Achievement,STEM Education,Enrollment,Academic Aspiration,Occupational Aspiration,Grade 11,Dropouts,Public Schools,Private Schools,Socioeconomic Status,Algebra,Student Characteristics,Educational Attainment,Parent Background,Student Surveys,College Bound Students

This report provides a first look at selected findings from the first follow-up of the High School Longitudinal Study of 2009 (HSLS:09). HSLS:09 focuses on understanding students' trajectories from the beginning of high school into higher education and the workforce. The core research questions for the 
study explore secondary to postsecondary transition plans and the evolution of those plans; the paths into and out of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields of study and careers; and the educational and social experiences that are related to these shifts in plans or paths. This &quot;First Look&quot; introduces new data from the &quot;High School Longitudinal Study of 2009&quot; collected in the spring of 2012 when most sample members were in their 11th-grade year. The analyses examine students' educational expectations; students' math performance on an algebra assessment, including gains since the 9th grade; students' math and science efficacy; and students' initial planning for postsecondary educational application and enrollment. Appended are: (1) Technical Notes and Methodology; and (2) Standard Error Tables. (Contains 21 tables and 2 footnotes.)
Student Financial Aid, Academic Year 2011-12. First Look. (Provisional Data). NCES 2013-178
Author: Ginder, Scott A.
Date: 2013-10-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: Student Financial Aid,Undergraduate Students,Student Costs,Public Colleges,Private Colleges,Proprietary Schools,Grants,Scholarships,Two Year Colleges

The Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) collects institution-level data from postsecondary institutions in the United States (50 states and the District of Columbia) and other U.S. jurisdictions (see appendix A for a list of other U.S. jurisdictions). This &quot;First Look&quot; presents findings from the provisional data of the IPEDS winter 2012-13 data collection, which, in contrast to previous years, collected only the Student Financial Aid (SFA) component. The Human Resources component traditionally collected during the winter collection period has moved to the spring collection period and will be reported separately. The SFA component 
collects the number of undergraduate students receiving aid as well as the amount of aid received by those students. Data were collected through the IPEDS web-based data collection system. This &quot;First Look&quot; using IPEDS provisional SFA data provides users with an opportunity to access 
fully reviewed, edited, and imputed IPEDS data. Final data, including revisions to the provisional data submitted by institutions after the close of data collection, will be available during the next collection year (2013-14). 
The purpose of this report is to introduce new data through the presentation of tables containing descriptive information. Selected findings have been chosen to demonstrate the range of information available when using the IPEDS data rather than to discuss all of the observed differences, and they are not meant to emphasize any particular issue. Among full-time, first time degree/certificate-seeking undergraduate students receiving any grant 
aid, differences in average cost of attendance and net price of attendance  for the 2011-12 academic year varied by institutional sector (table 1). For those attending public 4-year institutions, average cost was approximately $18,300 and net price was about $11,700; for those attending nonprofit 4-year institutions, average cost was roughly $35,200 and net price was 
about $20,600; and for those attending for-profit 4-year institutions, average cost was approximately $27,000 and net price was about $21,900. Appended are: (1) Data Collection Procedures; and (2) Glossary of IPEDS Terms. (Contains 1 table and 6 footnotes.) [This report was prepared for the National Center for Education Statistics under Contract No. ED-IES-09-C-0006 with RTI International.]