<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet title="XSL_formatting" href="/ERICWebPortal/resources/xml/rss.xml" type="text/xsl"  media="screen"?>
















<rss version="2.0">
    <channel>
        <title>ERIC Regional Educational Laboratories RSS Feed showing top 50 results</title>
        <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov:80/ERICWebPortal/Home.portal?_nfpb=true&amp;ERICExtSearch_Operator_2=or&amp;ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=jn&amp;ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_2=Laboratory+Mid-Atlantic+or+Laboratory+Midwest&amp;ERICExtSearch_SearchType_4=jn&amp;ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_4=Laboratory+Southeast+or+Laboratory+West&amp;ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_1=Laboratory+Pacific+or+Laboratory+Appalachia&amp;ERICExtSearch_Operator_1=or&amp;ERICExtSearch_SearchType_1=jn&amp;ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=Laboratory+Central+or+Laboratory+Northwest&amp;ERICExtSearch_SearchType_2=jn&amp;ERICExtSearch_Operator_4=or&amp;ERICExtSearch_SearchCount=4&amp;ERICExtSearch_PubDate_From=2007&amp;ERICExtSearch_Operator_3=or&amp;ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_3=Laboratory+Northeast+or+Laboratory+Southwest&amp;ERICExtSearch_SearchType_3=jn&amp;_pageLabel=ERICSearchResult&amp;feed=rel</link>
        <description>Regional Educational Labroatories publications</description>
        <copyright>Copyright(c) 2008 Education Resources Information Center</copyright>
        <language>en-us</language>
            
        <docs>http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification</docs>
        <lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:29:58 EST</lastBuildDate>
        <webMaster>ericsupport@csc.com</webMaster>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED505977</guid>
            <title>ED505977 - Snapshots of Indiana's Full-Day Kindergarten Programs before and after the State's Funding Increase for the Program. REL Technical Brief. REL 2009-No. 013</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED505977</link>
            <description><![CDATA[The Indiana General Assembly increased the state grant funds for full-day kindergarten from $8.5 million for 2006/07 to $33.5 million for 2007/08. Following the increase in funding, the Indiana Department of Education and the Indiana State Board of Education requested assistance from Regional Educational Laboratory Midwest to analyze Indiana administrative data so that the agencies could report to the legislature on changes in full-day kindergarten enrollment and funding. This technical brief describes Indiana's full-day kindergarten enrollment patterns before and after the legislation (in 2006/07 and 2007/08) both in the state at large and in individual school corporations (equivalent to school districts) for all kindergarten students and disaggregated by student and school characteristics. Overall, full-day kindergarten enrollments in Indiana increased 20 percentage points over the study period, and the number of corporations that provided full-day kindergarten to more than 80 percent of their kindergarten students rose 26 percentage points. Detailed tables and charter schools analysis are appended. (Contains 6 tables, 3 figures, and 5 notes.) [This REL Technical Brief was prepared for the National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences (IES) by Regional Educational Laboratory Midwest, administered by Learning Point Associates.]]]></description>
            <author>Lovell, Rachel;  Kochanek, Julie;  Mathers, Carrie;  Burke, Matthew</author>
            <pubDate>2009-07-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Kindergarten</category>
            
            <category> Grants</category>
            
            <category> School Districts</category>
            
            <category> Educational Administration</category>
            
            <category> Enrollment Trends</category>
            
            <category> Educational Finance</category>
            
            <category> Financial Support</category>
            
            <category> State Aid</category>
            
            <category> State Legislation</category>
            
            <category> Student Characteristics</category>
            
            <category> Young Children</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED507081</guid>
            <title>ED507081 - New and Experienced Teachers in a School Reform Initiative: The Example of Reading First. Issues &amp; Answers. REL 2009-082</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED507081</link>
            <description><![CDATA[This study compares the experiences and perceptions of new and experienced teachers in 235 schools in six western states (Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Montana, Washington, and Wyoming) that have adopted the Reading First school reform initiative. Using previously collected data from surveys and interviews, the study considers four areas of the reform initiative for bringing all K-3 students up to grade level in reading by grade 3: instructional coaches, teacher collaboration, use of student assessment data, and support for reform. The study found three differences in new teachers' experiences with their reading coach (in amount of feedback, requested help, and belief that interactions with coaches changed their instruction practices), but not in overall perceptions of support from reading coaches. It also found that new teachers' confidence in their ability to use data for tasks such as grouping students and understanding schoolwide trends was significantly lower than that of experienced teachers. The study found no differences between the two groups in their perceptions of collaborative grade-level meetings--both agreed that the meetings were a good use of their time--or in their overall support for Reading First. Appended are: (1) What We Know from the Literature; and (2) Data Sources and Study Methods. (Contains 17 tables, 2 boxes, and 10 notes.)]]></description>
            <author>Nelsestuen, Kari;  Scott, Caitlin;  Hanita, Makoto;  Robinson, LeAnne;  Coskie, Tracy</author>
            <pubDate>2009-11-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Feedback (Response)</category>
            
            <category> Teacher Collaboration</category>
            
            <category> Educational Change</category>
            
            <category> Data Analysis</category>
            
            <category> Experienced Teachers</category>
            
            <category> Beginning Teachers</category>
            
            <category> Comparative Analysis</category>
            
            <category> Teacher Surveys</category>
            
            <category> Interviews</category>
            
            <category> Self Esteem</category>
            
            <category> Coaching (Performance)</category>
            
            <category> Student Evaluation</category>
            
            <category> Teacher Attitudes</category>
            
            <category> Staff Meetings</category>
            
            <category> Reading Programs</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED506842</guid>
            <title>ED506842 - Indian Education Policies in Five Northwest Region States. Issues &amp; Answers. REL 2009-081</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED506842</link>
            <description><![CDATA[In this comprehensive effort to study Indian education policies, the report categorizes the policies of five Northwest Region states based on 13 key policies identified in the literature and describes the legal methods used to adopt them, such as statutes, regulations, and executive orders. The study found that six of the key policies had been adopted by all five states: adopting academic standards for teaching students about the history and culture of America's indigenous peoples, involving Native Americans on advisory boards, promoting Native American languages through teacher certification, allowing students to learn their native language as part of their education program, and providing tuition assistance for college-bound Native American students. This study is intended to provide policymakers in all states with a comprehensive list of Indian education policies in the five Northwest Region states (Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington) and the legal mechanisms used to adopt them. The study did not assess the merit of any of the policies, how successfully they were implemented, or what effect they had on Native American students' academic achievement. Appended are: (1) Data collection and analysis; (2) Key informant interviews and interview protocol; (3) Policies, citations, and adoption mechanisms by state; and   (4) Descriptions of Indian education policies by key policy and state. (Contains 2 boxes and 23 tables.)]]></description>
            <author>Smiley, Richard;  Sather, Susan</author>
            <pubDate>2009-10-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>American Indian Education</category>
            
            <category> Educational Policy</category>
            
            <category> Academic Standards</category>
            
            <category> Advisory Committees</category>
            
            <category> American Indian Languages</category>
            
            <category> Native Language Instruction</category>
            
            <category> Teacher Certification</category>
            
            <category> Student Financial Aid</category>
            
            <category> American Indian Culture</category>
            
            <category> American Indian History</category>
            
            <category> Tribal Sovereignty</category>
            
            <category> Contracts</category>
            
            <category> Coordinators</category>
            
            <category> Achievement Gap</category>
            
            <category> Financial Support</category>
            
            <category> Curriculum</category>
            
            <category> Scholarships</category>
            
            <category> Tribally Controlled Education</category>
            
            <category> State Legislation</category>
            
            <category> State Regulation</category>
            
            <category> Data Collection</category>
            
            <category> Interviews</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED506003</guid>
            <title>ED506003 - Reducing Stereotype Threat in Classrooms: A Review of Social-Psychological Intervention Studies on Improving the Achievement of Black Students. Summary. Issues &amp; Answers. REL 2009-076</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED506003</link>
            <description><![CDATA[Stereotype threat arises from a fear among members of a group of reinforcing negative stereotypes about the intellectual ability of the group. This report identifies three randomized controlled trial studies that use classroom-based strategies to reduce stereotype threat and improve the academic performance of Black students, narrowing their achievement gap with White students. The three studies found positive impacts on the academic performance of Black students for the following social-psychological strategies: (1) Reinforcing for students the idea that intelligence is expandable and, like a muscle, grows stronger when worked; (2) Teaching students that their difficulties in school are often part of a normal learning curve or adjustment process, rather than something unique to them or their racial group; and (3) Helping students reflect on other values in their lives beyond school that are sources of self-worth for them. It is noted that while the strategies use established procedures that can be emulated by teachers and administrators, they also require thought and care on the part of schools and teachers in applying them in their particular situations. ["Reducing Stereotype Threat in Classrooms: A Review of Social-Psychological Intervention Studies on Improving the Achievement of Black Students" was written with contributions from Bianca Montrosse, Karla Lewis and Kathleen Mooney. For the full report, see ED506004.]]]></description>
            <author>Aronson, Joshua;  Cohen, Geoffrey;  McColskey, Wendy</author>
            <pubDate>2009-07-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Classroom Environment</category>
            
            <category> Stereotypes</category>
            
            <category> Social Psychology</category>
            
            <category> Intervention</category>
            
            <category> Academic Achievement</category>
            
            <category> African American Students</category>
            
            <category> Achievement Gap</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED506004</guid>
            <title>ED506004 - Reducing Stereotype Threat in Classrooms: A Review of Social-Psychological Intervention Studies on Improving the Achievement of Black Students. Issues &amp; Answers. REL 2009-076</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED506004</link>
            <description><![CDATA[Stereotype threat arises from a fear among members of a group of reinforcing negative stereotypes about the intellectual ability of the group. This report identifies three randomized controlled trial studies that use classroom-based strategies to reduce stereotype threat and improve the academic performance of Black students, narrowing their achievement gap with White students. The three studies found positive impacts on the academic performance of Black students for the following social-psychological strategies: (1) Reinforce for students the idea that intelligence is expandable and, like a muscle, grows stronger when worked; (2) Teach students that their difficulties in school are often part of a normal learning curve or adjustment process, rather than something unique to them or their racial group; and (3) Help students reflect on other values in their lives beyond school that are sources of self-worth for them. It is noted that while the strategies use established procedures that can be emulated by teachers and administrators, they also require thought and care on the part of schools and teachers in applying them in their particular situations. Limitations of the studies are also identified. Three appendices are included: (1) Research on the Relationship between Stereotype Threat and Black Students' Academic Performance; (2) Methodology; and (3) Article Screening and Study Quality Review Protocols. (Contains 2 notes, 3 figures, 2 boxes and 7 tables.) ["Reducing Stereotype Threat in Classrooms: A Review of Social-Psychological Intervention Studies on Improving the Achievement of Black Students" was written with contributions from Bianca Montrosse, Karla Lewis and Kathleen Mooney. For the summary report, see ED506003.]]]></description>
            <author>Aronson, Joshua;  Cohen, Geoffrey;  McColskey, Wendy</author>
            <pubDate>2009-07-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Classroom Environment</category>
            
            <category> Stereotypes</category>
            
            <category> Social Psychology</category>
            
            <category> Intervention</category>
            
            <category> Academic Achievement</category>
            
            <category> African American Students</category>
            
            <category> Achievement Gap</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED505877</guid>
            <title>ED505877 - Achievement Gap Patterns of Grade 8 American Indian and Alaska Native Students in Reading and Math. Issues &amp; Answers. REL 2009-No. 073</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED505877</link>
            <description><![CDATA[Focusing on student proficiency in reading and math from 2003-04 to 2006-07, this report compares gaps in performance on state achievement tests between grade 8 American Indian and Alaska Native students and all other grade 8 students in 26 states serving large populations of American Indian and Alaska Native students. In response to a request by the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), this study reports on the gap between American Indian and Alaska Native students and all other students on state achievement tests beginning in 2003/04, shortly after implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). It describes achievement patterns for grade 8 American Indian and Alaska Native students and all other grade 8 students between 2003/04 and 2006/07, focusing on student proficiency in reading and math on state assessments in 26 states serving large populations of American Indian and Alaska Native students. Staff at eight regional educational laboratories collected data on statewide assessment results, number of students tested, and annual measurable objectives for states with grade 8 state assessment data for 2003/04 (20 CCSSO network states and 6 other states that served at least 4,000 American Indian and Alaska Native students). Using annual measurable objectives, the researchers analyzed proficiency rates in each subject against NCLB goals by state. Proficiency rates were graphically arrayed for each state and subject across the four years to show patterns in the achievement gaps between American Indian and Alaska Native students and other students. This revealed changes in the performance of these students relative to all other students and to the annual measurable objective. Results indicate that in most states both American Indian and Alaska Native students and all other students experienced achievement gains across the study period. Although achievement gaps were generally found to persist, the American Indian and Alaska Native students were at least keeping pace by increasing in achievement along with all other students. The majority of states with three or four years of continuous data saw an increase in the proficiency rates of American Indian and Alaska Native students in both reading and math, with either a decrease in their performance deficit or, in states where their performance was above that of other groups, an increase in their performance lead over other students. Five appendices are included: (1) Results from the National Indian Education Study and Trend Analyses; (2) Methods and Data Limitations; (3) Table of State Assessment Program Web Addresses; (4) Reading Proficiency Rates by State: 2003/04 to 2006/07; and (5) Math Proficiency Rates by State: 2003/04 to 2006/07. (Contains 2 notes, 52 figures, 2 boxes and 6 tables.) [For the associated summary report, see ED505876.]]]></description>
            <author>Nelson, Steven;  Greenough, Richard;  Sage, Nicole</author>
            <pubDate>2009-07-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>American Indians</category>
            
            <category> Alaska Natives</category>
            
            <category> Students</category>
            
            <category> Grade 8</category>
            
            <category> Achievement Gap</category>
            
            <category> Mathematics Achievement</category>
            
            <category> Reading Achievement</category>
            
            <category> Comparative Analysis</category>
            
            <category> Achievement Tests</category>
            
            <category> Scores</category>
            
            <category> Achievement Gains</category>
            
            <category> Measurement</category>
            
            <category> American Indian Education</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED505876</guid>
            <title>ED505876 - Achievement Gap Patterns of Grade 8 American Indian and Alaska Native Students in Reading and Math. Summary. Issues &amp; Answers. REL 2009-No. 073</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED505876</link>
            <description><![CDATA[This document presents a summary of a larger report that focuses on student proficiency reading and math from 2003-04 to 2006-07. The report compares gaps in performance on state achievement tests between grade 8 American Indian and Alaska Native students and all other grade 8 students in 26 states serving large populations of American Indian and Alaska Native students. In response to a request by the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), the study reports on the gap between American Indian and Alaska Native students and all other students on state achievement tests beginning in 2003/04, shortly after implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). It describes achievement patterns for grade 8 American Indian and Alaska Native students and all other grade 8 students between 2003/04 and 2006/07, focusing on student proficiency in reading and math on state assessments in 26 states serving large populations of American Indian and Alaska Native students. Staff at eight regional educational laboratories collected data on statewide assessment results, number of students tested, and annual measurable objectives for states with grade 8 state assessment data for 2003/04 (20 CCSSO network states and 6 other states that served at least 4,000 American Indian and Alaska Native students). Using annual measurable objectives, the researchers analyzed proficiency rates in each subject against NCLB goals by state. Proficiency rates were graphically arrayed for each state and subject across the four years to show patterns in the achievement gaps between American Indian and Alaska Native students and other students. This revealed changes in the performance of these students relative to all other students and to the annual measurable objective. Results indicate that in most states both American Indian and Alaska Native students and all other students experienced achievement gains across the study period. Although achievement gaps were generally found to persist, the American Indian and Alaska Native students were at least keeping pace by increasing in achievement along with all other students. The majority of states with three or four years of continuous data saw an increase in the proficiency rates of American Indian and Alaska Native students in both reading and math, with either a decrease in their performance deficit or, in states where their performance was above that of other groups, an increase in their performance lead over other students. [This summary was prepared for the National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences (IES) by Regional Educational Laboratory (REL) Northwest administered by Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. For the associated full report, see ED505877.]]]></description>
            <author>Nelson, Steven;  Greenough, Richard;  Sage, Nicole</author>
            <pubDate>2009-07-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>American Indians</category>
            
            <category> Alaska Natives</category>
            
            <category> Students</category>
            
            <category> Grade 8</category>
            
            <category> Achievement Gap</category>
            
            <category> Mathematics Achievement</category>
            
            <category> Reading Achievement</category>
            
            <category> Comparative Analysis</category>
            
            <category> Achievement Tests</category>
            
            <category> Scores</category>
            
            <category> Achievement Gains</category>
            
            <category> Measurement</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED506260</guid>
            <title>ED506260 - Analysis of the Developmental Functioning of Early Intervention and Early Childhood Special Education Populations in Oregon. Issues &amp; Answers. REL 2009-078</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED506260</link>
            <description><![CDATA[This study reports on the developmental functioning levels of children from birth through age 2 in early intervention services and children ages 3-5 in early childhood special education services at the time of entry into services, using data from the Oregon Early Childhood Assessment System. The assessment system contains data on the assessed developmental functioning levels of children based on the 16 Oregon early childhood foundation areas and the three U.S. Office of Special Education Programs federal reporting child outcome areas.   The study analyzes developmental functioning data and key demographic variables (primary disability, gender, race/ethnicity, and primary home language) for the entire population of children in early intervention and early childhood special education services who received services over a 13-month period during 2006/07. The study results show the percentage  of children in early intervention and early childhood special education services assessed as functioning below age-expected skill levels on skills assessments using age-related criteria  embedded in the Oregon Early Childhood Assessment System database. With few exceptions, the developmental skills that were most often assessed as functioning below age-expected skill levels among children across all demographic subgroups were those important to school readiness in literacy and mathematics. Appended are: (1) The Oregon Early Childhood Assessment System; (2) Research on early intervention and early childhood special education services; and (3) Study methods and limitations. (Contains 16 tables and 1 box.)]]></description>
            <author>Nave, Gary;  Nishioka, Vicki;  Burke, Arthur</author>
            <pubDate>2009-08-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>School Readiness</category>
            
            <category> Early Intervention</category>
            
            <category> Disabilities</category>
            
            <category> Young Children</category>
            
            <category> Program Effectiveness</category>
            
            <category> Special Education</category>
            
            <category> Outcomes of Education</category>
            
            <category> Mathematics Achievement</category>
            
            <category> Reading Achievement</category>
            
            <category> Evaluation</category>
            
            <category> Preschool Children</category>
            
            <category> Accountability</category>
            
            <category> Federal Legislation</category>
            
            <category> At Risk Students</category>
            
            <category> Low Income Groups</category>
            
            <category> Developmental Delays</category>
            
            <category> Communication Disorders</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED505875</guid>
            <title>ED505875 - A Multistate Review of Professional Teaching Standards. Issues &amp; Answers. REL 2009-No. 075</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED505875</link>
            <description><![CDATA[This review of teaching standards in six states (California, Florida, Illinois, North Carolina, Ohio, and Texas) focuses on the structure, target audience, and selected content of the standards to inform California's revision of its teaching standards. The report was developed at the request of key education agencies in California. The review examined each state's teaching standards and supporting documents. Each of the six states whose standards were reviewed has taken a distinctive approach to the design of its teachings standards, and each set of standards may offer different insights to the people involved in developing and supporting teaching standards in other states. Collectively, the six sets of state teaching standards reviewed offer various options for broad consideration, such as structure and target groups of teachers. They also offer specific details on issues and topics emphasized and on language choices. (Contains 5 notes, 1 box and 5 tables.) [For the associated summary report, see ED505874.]]]></description>
            <author>White, Melissa Eiler;  Makkonen, Reino;  Stewart, Kari Becker</author>
            <pubDate>2009-07-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Teacher Competencies</category>
            
            <category> Elementary Secondary Education</category>
            
            <category> Standards</category>
            
            <category> Accountability</category>
            
            <category> English (Second Language)</category>
            
            <category> Assistive Technology</category>
            
            <category> Disabilities</category>
            
            <category> Cooperation</category>
            
            <category> Educational Technology</category>
            
            <category> Credentials</category>
            
            <category> Public Agencies</category>
            
            <category> Federal Government</category>
            
            <category> Federal Legislation</category>
            
            <category> Language Acquisition</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED505874</guid>
            <title>ED505874 - A Multistate Review of Professional Teaching Standards. Summary. Issues &amp; Answers. REL 2009-No. 075</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED505874</link>
            <description><![CDATA[This document presents a summary of a larger report that reviews teaching standards in six states (California, Florida, Illinois, North Carolina, Ohio, and Texas) focuses on the structure, target audience, and selected content of the standards to inform California's revision of its teaching standards. The report was developed at the request of key education agencies in California. The review examined each state's teaching standards and supporting documents. Collectively, the six sets of state teaching standards reviewed offer various options for broad consideration, such as structure and target groups of teachers. They also offer specific details on issues and topics emphasized and on language choices. [This summary was prepared for the National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences (IES) by Regional Educational Laboratory West administered by WestEd. For the associated full report, see ED505875.]]]></description>
            <author>White, Melissa Eiler;  Makkonen, Reino;  Stewart, Kari Becker</author>
            <pubDate>2009-07-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Teacher Competencies</category>
            
            <category> Standards</category>
            
            <category> Evaluation</category>
            
            <category> Public Agencies</category>
            
            <category> Federal Government</category>
            
            <category> Teachers</category>
            
            <category> English (Second Language)</category>
            
            <category> Disabilities</category>
            
            <category> Accountability</category>
            
            <category> Elementary Secondary Education</category>
            
            <category> Individualized Education Programs</category>
            
            <category> Cooperation</category>
            
            <category> Assistive Technology</category>
            
            <category> Information Technology</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED506067</guid>
            <title>ED506067 - The Status of State-Level Response to Intervention Policies and Procedures in the West Region States and Five Other States. Issues &amp; Answers. REL 2009-No. 077</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED506067</link>
            <description><![CDATA[Response to intervention (RTI) can be both a system for providing early interventions to struggling students and a special education diagnostic tool for evaluating and identifying students with specific learning disabilities. Contributing to the very limited literature on state-level approaches, this report describes how nine states define and support RTI at the state level. Despite the growing attention, little has been published on the state-level approach to RTI. This report expands the limited research base by providing descriptive information on state-level RTI policies and procedures in nine states: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Illinois, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Utah, and Washington. While the focus is on West Region states: (Arizona, California, Nevada, and Utah), RTI practices in five states outside the region (Arkansas, Illinois, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Washington) provide additional insights into state-level approaches to RTI. The study addresses the following research questions: (1) How is RTI defined in the nine study states, and how are RTI efforts supported at the state level? and (2) What considerations do state respondents report about developing state RTI policies and procedures, and how have their states addressed them? Four appendices are included: (1) Profiles of state approaches to response to intervention; (2) Data collection and study methods; (3) Interview protocol; and (4) Documentation review summary sheet. A list of 44 state-specific resources used in document review is also included. (Contains 4 tables, 10 notes, and 3 boxes.) [This report was prepared for the National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences (IES) by Regional Educational Laboratory West administered by WestEd.]]]></description>
            <author>Harr-Robins, Jenifer J.;  Shambaugh, Larisa S.;  Parrish, Tom</author>
            <pubDate>2009-08-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Early Intervention</category>
            
            <category> Educational Diagnosis</category>
            
            <category> Learning Disabilities</category>
            
            <category> State Programs</category>
            
            <category> Educational Policy</category>
            
            <category> Government Role</category>
            
            <category> Models</category>
            
            <category> Program Administration</category>
            
            <category> Program Implementation</category>
            
            <category> Financial Support</category>
            
            <category> Technical Assistance</category>
            
            <category> Profiles</category>
            
            <category> Networks</category>
            
            <category> Training</category>
            
            <category> College School Cooperation</category>
            
            <category> Program Evaluation</category>
            
            <category> Student Diversity</category>
            
            <category> Regular and Special Education Relationship</category>
            
            <category> Interviews</category>
            
            <category> Data Collection</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED506631</guid>
            <title>ED506631 - Methodologies Used by Midwest Region States for Studying Teacher Supply and Demand. Issues &amp; Answers. REL 2009-080</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED506631</link>
            <description><![CDATA[This report describes how state education agencies in the Midwest Region monitor teacher supply, demand, and shortage; details why they monitor these data; and offers estimates of the monetary costs incurred in performing such studies. This study responds to a request from state education agencies in the Midwest Region (Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin) to learn more about teacher supply and demand studies conducted in neighboring states. The study aimed to determine: (1) what motivates states to assess teacher supply and demand; (2) what methodologies do Midwest Region states employ to monitor teacher supply and demand; (3) what the costs are of various state  approaches. The study found that state education agencies conduct teacher supply and demand studies to comply with federal laws and regulations, including provisions of part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, federal regulations on loan deferment or forgiveness programs and scholarships, and Title II requirements of the Higher Education Act. Appended are: (1) Descriptions of codes of federal regulation and federal law related to teacher shortage areas; (2) The literature review for forecast models; (3) Interview questions; and (4) Data reported in most recent teacher supply and demand reports, by Midwest Region state. (Contains 2 boxes, 1 figure, 10 tables, and 11 notes.)]]></description>
            <author>Lindsay, James J.;  Wan, Yinmei;  Gossin-Wilson, Will</author>
            <pubDate>2009-09-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Teacher Supply and Demand</category>
            
            <category> Teacher Shortage</category>
            
            <category> State Departments of Education</category>
            
            <category> Research Methodology</category>
            
            <category> Costs</category>
            
            <category> State Legislation</category>
            
            <category> Federal Legislation</category>
            
            <category> Federal Regulation</category>
            
            <category> Compliance (Legal)</category>
            
            <category> Interviews</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED506348</guid>
            <title>ED506348 - Models of Response to Intervention in the Northwest Region States. Issues &amp; Answers. REL 2009--No. 079</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED506348</link>
            <description><![CDATA[Response to intervention (RTI) is a framework for providing interventions and services at increasing levels of intensity until students succeed. The framework helps teachers and schools provide instruction and interventions matched to student needs, monitor progress frequently to guide decisions about changes in instruction or goals, and apply data to important education decisions (Batsche et al. 2005). This report provides information on the response to intervention (RTI) models supported by state education agencies in the Northwest Region and identifies states' RTI-related resources, policies, and activities. The information will help the Northwest Regional Comprehensive Center focus its technical assistance for RTI and identify areas for cross-state collaboration, while enabling states to learn from each other's experience. Specifically, the report describes state-level efforts to support implementation of response to intervention (RTI) in the Northwest Region states--Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington. RTI, an approach to improving education outcomes, focuses on monitoring academic progress and using assessment data to identify struggling students, modify instruction, and provide interventions matched to students' needs on a tiered, gradually intensifying basis (Batsche et al. 2005). The tiered RTI framework requires a research-based core program of curriculum and instruction that meets the needs of most students. The three research questions that guided the study and a brief summary of the findings are presented herein. The first question is on context, on what the state education agencies viewed as the purpose of RTI. The two primary research questions look at the components of state education agency approaches to RTI and at state support of districts' implementation of RTI. Four appendices are included: (1) The literature on response to intervention; (2) Study methodology; (3) Interview protocol; and (4) State profiles. (Contains 2 boxes and 19 tables.)]]></description>
            <author>Stepanek, Jennifer;  Peixotto, Kit</author>
            <pubDate>2009-09-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Student Needs</category>
            
            <category> Intervention</category>
            
            <category> Academic Achievement</category>
            
            <category> Learning Disabilities</category>
            
            <category> State Departments of Education</category>
            
            <category> Data Analysis</category>
            
            <category> Technical Assistance</category>
            
            <category> Teaching Methods</category>
            
            <category> State Programs</category>
            
            <category> Reading Instruction</category>
            
            <category> Models</category>
            
            <category> Instructional Effectiveness</category>
            
            <category> Program Effectiveness</category>
            
            <category> School Districts</category>
            
            <category> Government Role</category>
            
            <category> Educational Policy</category>
            
            <category> Educational Resources</category>
            
            <category> Educational Objectives</category>
            
            <category> Program Implementation</category>
            
            <category> Formative Evaluation</category>
            
            <category> Disability Identification</category>
            
            <category> Mathematics Instruction</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED505289</guid>
            <title>ED505289 - How State Education Agencies in the Northeast and Islands Region Support Data-Driven Decisionmaking in Districts and Schools. Issues &amp; Answers. REL 2009-No. 072. Summary</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED505289</link>
            <description><![CDATA[The report examines the initiatives of state education agencies in the Northeast and Islands Region (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and the Virgin Islands) to support data-driven decisionmaking in districts and schools and describes the service providers hired to support this work. Four components of data-driven decisionmaking initiatives are identified: (1) Centralized data system/warehouse; (2) Tools for data analysis and reporting; (3) Training on data systems/warehouses and tools; and (4) Professional development in using data for decisionmaking. Analysis of the four components across the state education agency initiatives revealed that not all initiatives include all four components, and implementation is affected in part by available funding and capacity. The study outlines considerations for education decisionmakers and researchers on the potential benefits of implementing additional components of a data-driven decisionmaking system, sources of funding, and strategies to enhance their capacity to support teachers and administrators. Ideas are proposed for further research, including examining how state education agencies scale up their data-driven decisionmaking initiatives; exploring how state education agencies, schools, and districts implement data-driven decisionmaking; and analyzing the impacts of data-driven decisionmaking on student and school outcomes. [This report was written with Young Oh and Charlotte North. For full report, see ED505288.]]]></description>
            <author>LaPointe, Michelle A.;  Brett, Jessica;  Kagle, Melissa;  Midouhas, Emily;  Sanchez, Maria Teresa</author>
            <pubDate>2009-05-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>State Departments of Education</category>
            
            <category> Data</category>
            
            <category> Decision Making</category>
            
            <category> Centralization</category>
            
            <category> Data Analysis</category>
            
            <category> Data Collection</category>
            
            <category> Training</category>
            
            <category> Professional Development</category>
            
            <category> Financial Support</category>
            
            <category> Services</category>
            
            <category> Organizations (Groups)</category>
            
            <category> Differences</category>
            
            <category> Program Implementation</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED505288</guid>
            <title>ED505288 - How State Education Agencies in the Northeast and Islands Region Support Data-Driven Decisionmaking in Districts and Schools. Issues &amp; Answers. REL 2009-No. 072</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED505288</link>
            <description><![CDATA[The report examines the initiatives of state education agencies in the Northeast and Islands Region to support data-driven decisionmaking in districts and schools and describes the service providers hired to support this work. Four components of data-driven decisionmaking initiatives are identified: (1) Centralized data system/warehouse; (2) Tools for data analysis and reporting; (3) Training on data systems/warehouses and tools; and (4) Professional development in using data for decisionmaking. Analysis of the four components across the  state education agency initiatives revealed that not all initiatives include all four components, and implementation is affected in part by available funding and capacity. The study outlines considerations for education decisionmakers and researchers on the potential benefits of implementing additional components of a data-driven decisionmaking system, sources of funding, and strategies to enhance their capacity to support teachers and administrators. Ideas are proposed for further research, including examining how state education agencies scale up their data-driven decisionmaking initiatives; exploring how state education agencies,  schools, and districts implement data-driven decisionmaking; and analyzing the impacts of  data-driven decisionmaking on student and school outcomes. [This report was written with Young Oh and Charlotte North. For summary report, see ED505289.]]]></description>
            <author>LaPointe, Michelle A.;  Brett, Jessica;  Kagle, Melissa;  Midouhas, Emily;  Sanchez, Maria Teresa</author>
            <pubDate>2009-05-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>State Departments of Education</category>
            
            <category> Data</category>
            
            <category> Decision Making</category>
            
            <category> Centralization</category>
            
            <category> Data Analysis</category>
            
            <category> Data Collection</category>
            
            <category> Training</category>
            
            <category> Professional Development</category>
            
            <category> Financial Support</category>
            
            <category> Services</category>
            
            <category> Organizations (Groups)</category>
            
            <category> Differences</category>
            
            <category> Program Implementation</category>
            
            <category> Academic Achievement</category>
            
            <category> Profiles</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED505419</guid>
            <title>ED505419 - Analyzing Performance by Grade 10 Hispanic High School Students on the Massachusetts State Assessment. Summary. Issues &amp; Answers. REL 2009-No. 071</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED505419</link>
            <description><![CDATA[Massachusetts policymakers have expressed concern about the consistently lower scores of Hispanic students, compared to other subgroups, on the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS). This summary describes a larger report that examines Hispanic high school students' performance on the MCAS tests in English language arts and mathematics over 2002/03-2005/06. It compares the scores of grade 10 Hispanic and non-Hispanic students and uses multilevel regressions to examine associations between the Hispanic students' scores and student- and school-level characteristics. [This report was prepared for the National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences (IES) by Regional Educational Laboratory Northeast and Islands administered by Education Development Center, Inc. For the full report, see ED505420.]]]></description>
            <author>Sanchez, Maria Teresa;  Ehrlich, Stacy;  Midouhas, Emily;  O'Dwyer, Laura</author>
            <pubDate>2009-06-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Grade 10</category>
            
            <category> Hispanic American Students</category>
            
            <category> High School Students</category>
            
            <category> Comparative Analysis</category>
            
            <category> Achievement Tests</category>
            
            <category> Scores</category>
            
            <category> Achievement Gap</category>
            
            <category> Student Characteristics</category>
            
            <category> Institutional Characteristics</category>
            
            <category> Mathematics Achievement</category>
            
            <category> Reading Achievement</category>
            
            <category> Writing Achievement</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED505420</guid>
            <title>ED505420 - Analyzing Performance by Grade 10 Hispanic High School Students on the Massachusetts State Assessment. Issues &amp; Answers. REL 2009-No. 071</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED505420</link>
            <description><![CDATA[Massachusetts policymakers recently expressed a desire to better understand Hispanic student achievement patterns in their state. Scores on the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) tests have consistently revealed a gap in performance between Hispanic students and students from other subgroups, a gap corresponding to national trends. Yet studies that look closely at achievement in the national Hispanic student population are rare, and no previous analyses of Massachusetts data have been done for this  subgroup. To reveal achievement patterns for the diverse group of Hispanic students in Massachusetts and to inform policy and program decisions, the Massachusetts Deputy Commissioner of Education and staff at the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education asked the Regional Educational Laboratory Northeast and Islands to analyze the scores of grade 10 Hispanic students on MCAS tests in English language arts  and mathematics over 2002/03-2005/06. The department wished to learn about associations  between the scores and school- and student-level characteristics, such as school attendance rate, English proficiency status, country of origin, first language, and school attended. The report compares the MCAS test performance of grade 10 Hispanic students with that of grade 10 non-Hispanic students over 2002/03-2005/06, looking at both English language arts and mathematics. Multilevel regressions are used to examine relationships between Hispanic students' MCAS test performance and student- and school-level characteristics. Five appendices are included: (1) Research on Hispanic students' academic achievement; (2) Study methods; (3) Data removal process for the descriptive analyses and multilevel regression modeling; (4) Characteristics of grade 10 Hispanic and non-Hispanic students in Massachusetts, 2002/03-2005/06; and (5) Multilevel regression modeling results. (Contains 30 tables, 3 figures, 4 boxes, and 3 notes.) [This report was prepared for the National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences (IES) by Regional Educational Laboratory Northeast and Islands administered by Education Development Center, Inc. For the summary report, see ED505419.]]]></description>
            <author>Sanchez, Maria Teresa;  Ehrlich, Stacy;  Midouhas, Emily;  O'Dwyer, Laura</author>
            <pubDate>2009-06-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Grade 10</category>
            
            <category> Hispanic American Students</category>
            
            <category> High School Students</category>
            
            <category> Comparative Analysis</category>
            
            <category> Achievement Tests</category>
            
            <category> Scores</category>
            
            <category> Achievement Gap</category>
            
            <category> Student Characteristics</category>
            
            <category> Institutional Characteristics</category>
            
            <category> Mathematics Achievement</category>
            
            <category> Reading Achievement</category>
            
            <category> Writing Achievement</category>
            
            <category> Multiple Regression Analysis</category>
            
            <category> Academic Achievement</category>
            
            <category> Educational Research</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED504787</guid>
            <title>ED504787 - Five States' Efforts to Improve Adolescent Literacy. Summary. Issues &amp; Answers. REL 2009-No. 067</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED504787</link>
            <description><![CDATA[This document represents a summary of the report, "Five States' Efforts to Improve Adolescent Literacy." "Five States' Efforts to Improve Adolescent Literacy" describes efforts by five states (Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, New Jersey, and Rhode Island) to improve adolescent literacy. Highlighting common challenges and lessons, the report examines how each state has engaged key stakeholders, set rigorous goals and standards, aligned resources to support adolescent literacy goals, built educator capacity, and used data to measure progress. Responding to questions from state education agency staff members and policymakers, the report describes what each state has done to promote effective adolescent literacy practices in schools and districts. The researchers collected information from policy documents and through interviews with key staff members at state education agencies. Following individual state case studies, a cross-state analysis examines how each state applied five types of strategies for improving adolescent literacy: (1) Engaging key stakeholders to make adolescent literacy a priority; (2) Setting rigorous state literacy goals and standards, with other state policies aligned to support them; (3) Aligning resources to support adolescent literacy goals; (4) Building educator capacity to support adolescent literacy programs at state, school, and classroom levels; and (5) Measuring progress and using data to make decisions and provide oversight. The five strategies were  applied with considerable variation across the five states. [This summary was prepared for the National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences (IES) by Regional Educational Laboratory Northeast and Islands administered by Education Development Center, Inc. For the complete report, see ED504786.]]]></description>
            <author>Bates, Lauren;  Breslow, Nicole;  Hupert, Naomi</author>
            <pubDate>2009-04-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Content Area Reading</category>
            
            <category> State Departments of Education</category>
            
            <category> Literacy</category>
            
            <category> Adolescents</category>
            
            <category> Interviews</category>
            
            <category> Case Studies</category>
            
            <category> Reading Improvement</category>
            
            <category> Educational Change</category>
            
            <category> Stakeholders</category>
            
            <category> Educational Assessment</category>
            
            <category> Educational Improvement</category>
            
            <category> Professional Development</category>
            
            <category> Educational Objectives</category>
            
            <category> Academic Standards</category>
            
            <category> Educational Strategies</category>
            
            <category> Educational Legislation</category>
            
            <category> Research Methodology</category>
            
            <category> Program Effectiveness</category>
            
            <category> Program Evaluation</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED504786</guid>
            <title>ED504786 - Five States' Efforts to Improve Adolescent Literacy. Issues &amp; Answers. REL 2009-No. 067</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED504786</link>
            <description><![CDATA[This report describes efforts by five states (Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, New Jersey, and Rhode Island) to improve adolescent literacy. Highlighting common challenges and lessons, the report examines how each state has engaged key stakeholders, set rigorous goals and  standards, aligned resources to support adolescent literacy goals, built educator capacity, and used data to measure progress. Responding to questions from state education agency staff members and policymakers, the report describes what each state has done to promote effective adolescent literacy practices in schools and districts. The researchers collected information from policy documents and through interviews with key staff members at state education agencies. Following individual state case studies, a cross-state analysis examines how each state applied five types of strategies for improving adolescent literacy: (1) Engaging key stakeholders to make adolescent literacy a priority; (2) Setting rigorous state literacy goals and standards, with other state policies aligned to support them; (3) Aligning resources to support adolescent literacy goals; (4) Building educator capacity to support adolescent literacy programs at state, school, and classroom levels; and (5) Measuring progress and using data to make decisions and provide oversight. The five strategies were  applied with considerable variation across the five states. Five appendixes are included: (1) Review of Research on Adolescent Literacy and Related Policy: (2) Glossary; (3) Methodology of State Selection, Data Collection, and Analysis; (4) Advisors to the Report; and (5) Questions Used for interview Protocols. (Contains 4 boxes and 9 tables.) [This report was prepared for the National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences (IES) by Regional Educational Laboratory Northeast and Islands administered by Education Development Center, Inc. For the report summary, see ED504787.]]]></description>
            <author>Bates, Lauren;  Breslow, Nicole;  Hupert, Naomi</author>
            <pubDate>2009-04-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Content Area Reading</category>
            
            <category> State Departments of Education</category>
            
            <category> Literacy</category>
            
            <category> Adolescents</category>
            
            <category> Interviews</category>
            
            <category> Case Studies</category>
            
            <category> Reading Improvement</category>
            
            <category> Educational Change</category>
            
            <category> Stakeholders</category>
            
            <category> Educational Assessment</category>
            
            <category> Educational Improvement</category>
            
            <category> Professional Development</category>
            
            <category> Educational Objectives</category>
            
            <category> Academic Standards</category>
            
            <category> Research Methodology</category>
            
            <category> Educational Strategies</category>
            
            <category> Educational Legislation</category>
            
            <category> Program Effectiveness</category>
            
            <category> Program Evaluation</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED505025</guid>
            <title>ED505025 - Parent Involvement Strategies in Urban Middle and High Schools in the Northeast and Islands Region. Issues &amp; Answers. REL 2009-No. 069. Summary</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED505025</link>
            <description><![CDATA[This report summarizes efforts to develop and pilot test a protocol for collecting information about parent involvement policies, practices, and programs being implemented at the middle and high school levels. The protocol can be used to expand documentation of strategies selected, adapted, and sustained in future years. The study reviewed the literature on parent involvement practices and programs, and included studies that met screening criteria for the timeframe (1997-2008), intervention strategy (parent involvement policies, practices, and programs), sample (parents of students in grades 6-12), and outcome. Practices and programs encompassed efforts to encourage parent involvement with students at home and school. Relevant outcomes included parent involvement, with or without linkages to student outcomes. A typology of parent involvement practices was created based on the literature review. Information on practices was categorized as either general information exchange or information exchange on individual student performance, special events, volunteer opportunities, parent education, professional development for faculty and staff, home-school  coordination and outreach to traditionally hard to reach parents, or parent resource centers. Programs were summarized by their goals, populations reached, content, outcomes, and evidence of effectiveness. The literature review provided a context for understanding the information that was collected from nine urban districts in Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and New York. The project focused on districts that serve large proportions of racial/ethnic minority families and families living in poverty. Each state education commissioner's office selected one district in the state; a second district in each state was selected at random. A ninth district was selected to round out the diversity of populations served. Interviews on parental involvement policies were conducted with an average of five to six informants from state education agencies, selected districts, and schools. Data from interviews were supplemented with information from public records, including searches of state, district, and school web sites. The pilot districts implemented multiple practices that were supported by state and district policies and were consistent with No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and Title I provisions. In general, these practices were not organized into formal programs or articulated in ways that would support rigorous evaluation and identification. Study findings highlight need for: (1) Fully articulated programs that can be rigorously evaluated to determine what works; (2) Systematic data collection on parent involvement programs to promote shared learning and to identify policies, practices and programs that may merit further evaluation; and (3) Rigorous study designs that overcome the limitations of existing evaluations of parent involvement strategies and provide evidence of what works in middle and high schools [For full report, see ED505024.]]]></description>
            <author>Agronick, Gail;  Clark, Amy;  O'Donnell, Lydia;  Stueve, Ann</author>
            <pubDate>2009-04-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>High Schools</category>
            
            <category> Intervention</category>
            
            <category> Elementary Secondary Education</category>
            
            <category> Federal Legislation</category>
            
            <category> Parent Participation</category>
            
            <category> Parent Education</category>
            
            <category> Resource Centers</category>
            
            <category> Program Effectiveness</category>
            
            <category> Parent School Relationship</category>
            
            <category> State Departments of Education</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED505024</guid>
            <title>ED505024 - Parent Involvement Strategies in Urban Middle and High Schools in the Northeast and Islands Region. Issues &amp; Answers. REL 2009-No. 069</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED505024</link>
            <description><![CDATA[This report summarizes efforts to develop and pilot test a protocol for collecting information about parent involvement policies, practices, and programs being implemented at the middle and high school levels. The protocol can be used to expand documentation of strategies selected, adapted, and sustained in future years. The study reviewed the literature on parent involvement practices and programs, and included studies that met screening criteria for the timeframe (1997-2008), intervention strategy (parent involvement policies, practices, and programs), sample (parents of students in grades 6-12), and outcome. Practices and programs encompassed efforts to encourage parent involvement with students at home and school. Relevant outcomes included parent involvement, with or without linkages to student outcomes. A typology of parent involvement practices was created based on the literature review. Information on practices was categorized as either general information exchange or information exchange on individual student performance, special events, volunteer opportunities, parent education, professional development for faculty and staff, home-school  coordination and outreach to traditionally hard to reach parents, or parent resource centers. Programs were summarized by their goals, populations reached, content, outcomes, and evidence of effectiveness. The literature review provided a context for understanding the information that was collected from nine urban districts in Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and New York. The project focused on districts that serve large proportions of racial/ethnic minority families and families living in poverty. Each state education commissioner's office selected one district in the state; a second district in each state was selected at random. A ninth district was selected to round out the diversity of populations served. Interviews on parental involvement policies were conducted with an average of five to six informants from state education agencies, selected districts, and schools. Data from interviews were supplemented with information from public records, including searches of state, district, and school web sites. The pilot districts implemented multiple practices that were supported by state and district policies and were consistent with No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and Title I provisions. In general, these practices were not organized into formal programs or articulated in ways that would support rigorous evaluation and identification. Study findings highlight need for: (1) Fully articulated programs that can be rigorously evaluated to determine what works; (2) Systematic data collection on parent involvement programs to promote shared learning and to identify policies, practices and programs that may merit further evaluation; and (3) Rigorous study designs that overcome the limitations of existing evaluations of parent involvement strategies and provide evidence of what works in middle and high schools. Two appendices are included: (1) Literature review on parent involvement and student success; and (2) Study methods. (Contains 2 notes, 3 boxes and 3 tables.) [For summary, see ED505025.]]]></description>
            <author>Agronick, Gail;  Clark, Amy;  O'Donnell, Lydia;  Stueve, Ann</author>
            <pubDate>2009-04-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Pilot Projects</category>
            
            <category> Data Collection</category>
            
            <category> Middle Schools</category>
            
            <category> High Schools</category>
            
            <category> Urban Education</category>
            
            <category> Parent Participation</category>
            
            <category> Parent School Relationship</category>
            
            <category> Parent Student Relationship</category>
            
            <category> Race</category>
            
            <category> Ethnicity</category>
            
            <category> Minority Groups</category>
            
            <category> Poverty</category>
            
            <category> Federal Legislation</category>
            
            <category> Program Effectiveness</category>
            
            <category> State Departments of Education</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED504061</guid>
            <title>ED504061 - New Measures of English Language Proficiency and Their Relationship to Performance on Large-Scale Content Assessments. REL 2009-No. 066. Summary</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED504061</link>
            <description><![CDATA[Using assessment results for 5th and 8th grade English language learner students in New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont, the report finds that the English language domains of reading and writing (as measured by a proficiency assessment) are significant predictors of performance on reading, writing, and mathematics assessments and that the domains of reading and writing (literacy skills) are more closely associated with performance than are the English language domains of speaking and listening (oral skills). (Contains 1 note.) [For full report, see ED504060.]]]></description>
            <author>Parker, Caroline E.;  Louie, Josephine;  O'Dwyer, Laura</author>
            <pubDate>2009-01-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>English (Second Language)</category>
            
            <category> Second Language Learning</category>
            
            <category> Language Proficiency</category>
            
            <category> Grade 5</category>
            
            <category> Grade 8</category>
            
            <category> Measures (Individuals)</category>
            
            <category> Program Effectiveness</category>
            
            <category> Relationship</category>
            
            <category> Performance</category>
            
            <category> Performance Based Assessment</category>
            
            <category> Literacy</category>
            
            <category> Intervals</category>
            
            <category> Models</category>
            
            <category> Reliability</category>
            
            <category> Predictor Variables</category>
            
            <category> Mathematics Achievement</category>
            
            <category> Reading Achievement</category>
            
            <category> Writing Achievement</category>
            
            <category> Scores</category>
            
            <category> Documentation</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED504060</guid>
            <title>ED504060 - New Measures of English Language Proficiency and Their Relationship to Performance on Large-Scale Content Assessments. Issues &amp; Answers. REL 2009-No. 066</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED504060</link>
            <description><![CDATA[Using assessment results for 5th and 8th grade English language learner students in New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont, the report finds that the English language domains of reading and writing (as measured by a proficiency assessment) are significant predictors of performance on reading, writing, and mathematics assessments and that the domains of reading and writing (literacy skills) are more closely associated with performance than are the English language domains of speaking and listening (oral skills). Seven appendices are included: (1) Review of the Literature; (2) Methods of Analysis; (3) About the Data; (4) Descriptions and Reliability Estimates for New England Common Assessment Program and Assessing Comprehension and Communication in English State-to-State; (5) Confidence Intervals for Testing Differences; (6) Multilevel Modeling Procedures; and (7) New England Common Assessment Program Models. (Contains 17 notes, 1 figure, 2 boxes and 19 tables.) [For summary report, see ED504061.]]]></description>
            <author>Parker, Caroline E.;  Louie, Josephine;  O'Dwyer, Laura</author>
            <pubDate>2009-01-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>English (Second Language)</category>
            
            <category> Second Language Learning</category>
            
            <category> Language Proficiency</category>
            
            <category> Grade 5</category>
            
            <category> Grade 8</category>
            
            <category> Measures (Individuals)</category>
            
            <category> Program Effectiveness</category>
            
            <category> Relationship</category>
            
            <category> Performance</category>
            
            <category> Performance Based Assessment</category>
            
            <category> Literacy</category>
            
            <category> Intervals</category>
            
            <category> Models</category>
            
            <category> Reliability</category>
            
            <category> Predictor Variables</category>
            
            <category> Mathematics Achievement</category>
            
            <category> Reading Achievement</category>
            
            <category> Writing Achievement</category>
            
            <category> Scores</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED505662</guid>
            <title>ED505662 - Examining Independent Study High Schools in California. Summary. Issues &amp; Answers. REL 2009-No. 074</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED505662</link>
            <description><![CDATA[This document presents a summary of a larger report that examines California's independent study high schools (alternative schools in which 75 percent or more of students in grades 9-12 are enrolled in full-time independent study). The larger study describes enrollment trends since 2001-02 and the number and characteristics of schools and students as well as teacher qualifications in 2006-07. It used a merged school-level longitudinal dataset to track student enrollment from 2001-02 through 2006-07, and used school, teacher, and course-level datasets for 2006-07. The quantitative analysis contrasts the characteristics of independent study high schools with other non-traditional and traditional high schools. Qualitative data from the latest available School Accountability Report Card for each independent high school identified targeted student populations. Reported findings include: (1) In 2006-07, 58,788 students were enrolled in full-time independent study in grades 9-12 in California's 231 independent study high schools, an increase of 44.2 percent from 2001-02; (2) Approximately 54.9 percent of independent study high schools reported targeting a specific student group; (3) In 2006-07, the students population of independent study high schools was less diverse than that of other types of high schools, with larger percentages of White students and  female students, and lower percentages of socioeconomically disadvantaged students, English language learner students, students with disabilities, and migrant students, than other types of high schools; (4) In 2006-07, independent study high schools were less likely than other types of high school to be located in urban areas, or to have been open before 2001-02; and (5) Teachers in independent study high schools were less likely than teachers in other types of high school to hold an advanced academic degree and a secondary subject-specific teaching credential. [This report was prepared for the National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences (IES) by Regional Educational Laboratory West administered by WestEd. For the larger study, "Examining Independent Study High Schools in California. Issues & Answers. REL 2009-No. 074," see ED505663.]]]></description>
            <author>Barrat, Vanessa X.;  Berliner, BethAnn</author>
            <pubDate>2009-06-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>High Schools</category>
            
            <category> Independent Study</category>
            
            <category> Teacher Qualifications</category>
            
            <category> Accountability</category>
            
            <category> Enrollment Trends</category>
            
            <category> Enrollment</category>
            
            <category> High School Students</category>
            
            <category> Qualitative Research</category>
            
            <category> Statistical Analysis</category>
            
            <category> Student Diversity</category>
            
            <category> Socioeconomic Status</category>
            
            <category> Secondary School Teachers</category>
            
            <category> Nontraditional Education</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED505663</guid>
            <title>ED505663 - Examining Independent Study High Schools in California. Issues &amp; Answers. REL 2009-No. 074</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED505663</link>
            <description><![CDATA[This examination of California's independent study high schools (alternative schools in which  75 percent or more of students in grades 9-12 are enrolled in full-time independent study) describes enrollment trends since 2001-02 and the number and characteristics of schools and  students as well as teacher qualifications in 2006-07. The study used a merged school-level longitudinal dataset to track student enrollment from 2001-02 through 2006-07, and used school, teacher, and course-level datasets for 2006-07. The quantitative analysis contrasts the characteristics of independent study high schools with other non-traditional and traditional hight schools. Qualitative data from the latest available School Accountability Report Card for each independent high school identified targeted student populations. Reported findings include: (1) In 2006-07, 58,788 students were enrolled in full-time independent study in grades 9-12 in California's 231 independent study high schools, an increase of 44.2 percent from 2001-02; (2) Approximately 54.9 percent of independent study high schools reported targeting a specific student group; (3) In 2006-07, the students population of independent study high schools was less diverse than that of other types of high schools, with larger percentages of White students and  female students, and lower percentages of socioeconomically disadvantaged students, English language learner students, students with disabilities, and migrant students, than other types of high schools; (4) In 2006-07, independent study high schools were less likely than other types of high school to be located in urban areas, or to have been open before 2001-02; and (5) Teachers in independent study high schools were less likely than teachers in other types of high school to hold an advanced academic degree and a secondary subject-specific teaching credential. Two appendices are included: (1) Data Sources, Methodology, and Limitations; and (2) Descriptive Statistics. (Contains 4 notes, 1 box, 1 map, 5 figures, and 13 tables.) [This report was prepared for the National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences (IES) by Regional Educational Laboratory West administered by WestEd. For summary report, see ED505662.]]]></description>
            <author>Barrat, Vanessa X.;  Berliner, BethAnn</author>
            <pubDate>2009-06-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>High Schools</category>
            
            <category> Independent Study</category>
            
            <category> Teacher Qualifications</category>
            
            <category> Accountability</category>
            
            <category> Enrollment Trends</category>
            
            <category> Enrollment</category>
            
            <category> High School Students</category>
            
            <category> Qualitative Research</category>
            
            <category> Statistical Analysis</category>
            
            <category> Student Diversity</category>
            
            <category> Socioeconomic Status</category>
            
            <category> Secondary School Teachers</category>
            
            <category> Nontraditional Education</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED504869</guid>
            <title>ED504869 - West Virginia's Progress Toward Universal Prekindergarten. Summary. Issues &amp; Answers. REL 2009-No. 070</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED504869</link>
            <description><![CDATA[The report examines rates of participation in West Virginia's universal, voluntary prekindergarten (PreK) program from 2002-03 to 2006-07. It describes the share of seats provided by collaborative partners and public school systems and analyzes participation rates by demographic and socioeconomic subgroup and county characteristics. Reported findings include: (1) Statewide participation in West Virginia's PreK program rose from 26 percent in 2002-03 to 43 percent in 2006-07; (2) Although in 2002-03 the only documented providers of publicly funded PreK seats under the program were public school systems, in 2006-07 nearly a third of the seats were provided by approved collaborative partners; (3) Participation in the West Virginia PreK program varied by subgroup; (4) Although statistical analysis of participation rates, using multiple covariates to control for other factors, showed that membership in certain demographic and socioeconomic subgroups was not associated with participation in the PreK program, differences in certain county characteristics were associated with PreK program participation; and (5) Some evidence indicates an inverse association between county-wide income levels and PreK program participation rates. Two data limitations are cited: (1) West Virginia Department of Education suppressed its data on PreK program participants wherever there were fewer than 10 participants in a given data cell, weakening conclusions about subgroups; and (2) Data were not available on private PreK program participation or on the use of other early education programs. Based on this report, it is not possible to infer a causal relationship between a particular child, classroom, or county attribute and the extent of participation in West Virginia's universal, voluntary PreK program. [For full report, see ED504868.]]]></description>
            <author>Cavalluzzo, Linda;  Clinton, Yvette;  Holian, Laura;  Marr, Linda;  Taylor, Lydotta</author>
            <pubDate>2009-04-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Public Schools</category>
            
            <category> Preschool Education</category>
            
            <category> Statistical Analysis</category>
            
            <category> Counties</category>
            
            <category> Special Education</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED504868</guid>
            <title>ED504868 - West Virginia's Progress toward Universal Prekindergarten. Issues &amp; Answers. REL 2009-No. 070</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED504868</link>
            <description><![CDATA[The report examines rates of participation in West Virginia's universal, voluntary prekindergarten (PreK) program from 2002-03 to 2006-07. It describes the share of seats provided by collaborative partners and public school systems and analyzes participation rates by demographic and socioeconomic subgroup and county characteristics. Reported findings include: (1) Statewide participation in West Virginia's PreK program rose from 26 percent in 2002-03 to 43 percent in 2006-07; (2) Although in 2002-03 the only documented providers of publicly funded PreK seats under the program were public school systems, in 2006-07 nearly a third of the seats were provided by approved collaborative partners; (3) Participation in the West Virginia PreK program varied by subgroup; (4) Although statistical analysis of participation rates, using multiple covariates to control for other factors, showed that membership in certain demographic and socioeconomic subgroups was not associated with participation in the PreK program, differences in certain county characteristics were associated with PreK program participation; and (5) Some evidence indicates an inverse association between county-wide income levels and PreK program participation rates. Two data limitations are cited: (1) West Virginia Department of Education suppressed its data on PreK program participants wherever there were fewer than 10 participants in a given data cell, weakening conclusions about subgroups; and (2) Data were not available on private PreK program participation or on the use of other early education programs. Based on this report, it is not possible to infer a causal relationship between a particular child, classroom, or county attribute and the extent of participation in West Virginia's universal, voluntary PreK program. Three appendices are included: (1) Research on Kindergarten Readiness and on the Benefits of Prekindergarten; (2) Methodology; and (3) Detailed Results from the Participation Analysis. (Contains 3 notes, 2 boxes, 5 figures and 11 tables.) [For report summary, see ED504869.]]]></description>
            <author>Cavalluzzo, Linda;  Clinton, Yvette;  Holian, Laura;  Marr, Linda;  Taylor, Lydotta</author>
            <pubDate>2009-04-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Public Schools</category>
            
            <category> Income</category>
            
            <category> Preschool Education</category>
            
            <category> Educational Finance</category>
            
            <category> Statistical Analysis</category>
            
            <category> Counties</category>
            
            <category> Enrollment</category>
            
            <category> Special Education</category>
            
            <category> Early Childhood Education</category>
            
            <category> Academic Achievement</category>
            
            <category> School Readiness</category>
            
            <category> Young Children</category>
            
            <category> Rural Areas</category>
            
            <category> Ethnic Groups</category>
            
            <category> Minority Groups</category>
            
            <category> Equal Education</category>
            
            <category> Kindergarten</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED504359</guid>
            <title>ED504359 - How Eight State Education Agencies in the Northeast and Islands Region Identify and Support Low-Performing Schools and Districts. Summary. Issues &amp; Answers. REL 2009-No. 068</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED504359</link>
            <description><![CDATA[This document presents a summary of the report, "How Eight State Education Agencies in the Northeast and Islands Region Identify and Support Low-Performing Schools and Districts." This larger report describes and analyzes how eight state education agencies in the Northeast and Islands Region (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, and Vermont) identify and support low-performing schools and districts under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). Data collection for the report began in July 2007 and was completed in April 2008. A research team interviewed senior state education agency officials responsible for state interventions, conducted focus groups with staff and consultants who work directly with schools and districts, and examined materials and documents made public by the state education agencies. Focusing on direct state supports and interventions, the report finds that the eight agencies have created supports and rationales to put federally defined accountability principles into practice in response to their specific contexts, local needs, and capacities. Yet they share common concerns about balancing the tension between state and local decision-making, managing limited financial and human capacity for intervention, and ensuring coherence among various interventions. The state education agency officials' voices and perspectives point to the need for continued learning about building school and district capacity to improve student achievement, and about the role of state education agencies in supporting that goal. [This summary was written with Charlotte North. The summary was prepared for the National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences (IES) by Regional Educational Laboratory Northeast and Islands administered by Education Development Center, Inc. For the full report, see ED504360.]]]></description>
            <author>Hergert, Leslie F.;  Gleason, Sonia Caus;  Urbano, Carole</author>
            <pubDate>2009-03-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Federal Legislation</category>
            
            <category> Focus Groups</category>
            
            <category> State Departments of Education</category>
            
            <category> Interviews</category>
            
            <category> Intervention</category>
            
            <category> Decision Making</category>
            
            <category> Local Government</category>
            
            <category> State Government</category>
            
            <category> Accountability</category>
            
            <category> Educational Finance</category>
            
            <category> Human Capital</category>
            
            <category> Academic Achievement</category>
            
            <category> Government Role</category>
            
            <category> School Districts</category>
            
            <category> Low Achievement</category>
            
            <category> Educational Legislation</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED504360</guid>
            <title>ED504360 - How Eight State Education Agencies in the Northeast and Islands Region Identify and Support Low-Performing Schools and Districts. Issues &amp; Answers. REL 2009-No. 068  </title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED504360</link>
            <description><![CDATA[This report describes and analyzes how eight state education agencies in the Northeast and Islands Region (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, and Vermont) identify and support low-performing schools and districts under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). Data collection for the report began in July 2007 and was completed in April 2008. A research team interviewed senior state education agency officials responsible for state interventions, conducted focus groups with staff and consultants who work directly with schools and districts, and examined materials and documents made public by the state education agencies. Focusing on direct state supports and interventions, the report finds that the eight agencies have created supports and rationales to put federally defined accountability principles into practice in response to their specific contexts, local needs, and capacities. Yet they share common concerns about balancing the tension between state and local decision-making, managing limited financial and human capacity for intervention, and ensuring coherence among various interventions. The state education agency officials' voices and perspectives point to the need for continued learning about building school and district capacity to improve student achievement, and about the role of state education agencies in supporting that goal. Four appendixes are included: (1) Glossary; (2) The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 and State Accountability Systems; (3) Methods; and (4) Summaries of Interventions and Rationales for each State Education Agency. (Contains 2 notes, 2 boxes, and 16 tables.) [This report was written with Charlotte North. It was prepared for the National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences (IES) by Regional Educational Laboratory Northeast and Islands administered by Education Development Center, Inc. For the report summary, see ED504359.]]]></description>
            <author>Hergert, Leslie F.;  Gleason, Sonia Caus;  Urbano, Carole</author>
            <pubDate>2009-03-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Federal Legislation</category>
            
            <category> Focus Groups</category>
            
            <category> State Departments of Education</category>
            
            <category> Accountability</category>
            
            <category> Educational Legislation</category>
            
            <category> Intervention</category>
            
            <category> Interviews</category>
            
            <category> Decision Making</category>
            
            <category> Local Government</category>
            
            <category> State Government</category>
            
            <category> Educational Finance</category>
            
            <category> Human Capital</category>
            
            <category> Academic Achievement</category>
            
            <category> Government Role</category>
            
            <category> School Districts</category>
            
            <category> Low Achievement</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED502616</guid>
            <title>ED502616 - Gender Gaps in Assessment Outcomes in Vermont and the United States. Issues &amp; Answers. REL 2008-No. 062</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED502616</link>
            <description><![CDATA[Using data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) and the New England Common Assessment Program (NECAP), this report examines how gender gaps differ between Vermont NAEP scores and U.S. NAEP scores and between Vermont NAEP and NECAP scores in grades 4 and 8. Overall and disaggregated by poverty and disability status, gender achievement gaps in Vermont resembled those in the country as a whole except in a few cases. Appended to this document are: (1) Data sources, research methods, and limitations; (2) The Vermont National Assessment of Educational Progress and the New England Common Assessment Program; (3) Student demographics for Vermont and the country, 2005/06; (4) New England Common Assessment Program cases used in analyses;  (5) Vermont and U.S. National Assessment of Educational Progress scale scores and gaps; and (6) Vermont New England Common Assessment Program and National Assessment of Educational Progress scale scores and effect sizes. (Contains 2 boxes, 5 figures, 29 tables, and 7 notes.) [This report was prepared for the National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education by Regional Educational Laboratory Northeast and Islands administered by Education Development Center, Inc.]]]></description>
            <author>Louie, Josephine;  Ehrlich, Stacy</author>
            <pubDate>2008-08-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Gender Differences</category>
            
            <category> National Competency Tests</category>
            
            <category> Measures (Individuals)</category>
            
            <category> Effect Size</category>
            
            <category> Grade 4</category>
            
            <category> Grade 8</category>
            
            <category> Scores</category>
            
            <category> Academic Achievement</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED502501</guid>
            <title>ED502501 - Performance Patterns for Students with Disabilities in Grade 4 Mathematics Education in Massachusetts. Issues &amp; Answers. REL 2008-No. 051</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED502501</link>
            <description><![CDATA[Across the country states and school districts need to improve the mathematics performance of students with disabilities. This population of students increased since the 1970s, and there have also been changes in education expectations and accountability under the requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Acts of 1997 and 2004 and the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001. NCLB, in particular, has cast light on the generally low mathematics performance of many students with disabilities and on the achievement gaps between this subgroup and general education students. Performance trends in the Northeast and Islands Region mirror those of the country. This report presents descriptive and inferential analyses of mathematics achievement patterns for grade 4 students with disabilities and general education students in Massachusetts. Three research questions are examined: (1) What is the mathematics performance of public school grade 4 students with disabilities in Massachusetts? (2) How has the performance of grade 4 students with disabilities and grade 4 general education students changed over time? and (3) What is the gap in proficiency percentages between grade 4 general education students and grade 4 students with disabilities? The report finds that in 2006, 15.3 percent of grade 4 students with disabilities reached proficiency on the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System exam. The performance of students with disabilities differed across the locale-need combination categories. The proficiency gap between general education students and students with disabilities reflected decreases in proficiency among both groups, with general education students falling more. The gap shrank in low- and medium-need schools in both suburban and rural locales. But the gap widened in high-need schools across all locales and in urban schools across all need categories. The report illustrates the analyses that state and district leaders can conduct with publicly reported data, along with the ways the findings can be interpreted. The limitations of the analyses come from examining cross-sectional data on the proportion of students scoring proficient rather than longitudinal data on actual student scores, and from lacking information on the types and severity of disabilities. The findings and limitations are important as states move forward in analyzing subgroup performance and proficiency gap data and in making data-driven decisions. Data Sources and Methods are appended. (Contains 2 endnotes, 3 boxes, 7 figures and 8 tables.) [This report was prepared for the National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education by Regional Educational Laboratory Northeast and Islands administered by Education Development Center, Inc.]]]></description>
            <author>Ehrlich, Stacy;  Buckley, Katie;  Midouhas, Emily;  Brodesky, Amy</author>
            <pubDate>2008-08-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Disabilities</category>
            
            <category> Grade 4</category>
            
            <category> Elementary School Students</category>
            
            <category> Elementary School Mathematics</category>
            
            <category> Mathematics Education</category>
            
            <category> Mathematics Achievement</category>
            
            <category> Public Schools</category>
            
            <category> Change</category>
            
            <category> Performance</category>
            
            <category> Rural Schools</category>
            
            <category> Suburban Schools</category>
            
            <category> Urban Schools</category>
            
            <category> Federal Legislation</category>
            
            <category> Disadvantaged Schools</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED502395</guid>
            <title>ED502395 - Performance Patterns for Students with Disabilities in Grade 4 Mathematics Education in   New York State. Issues &amp; Answers. REL 2008-No. 050</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED502395</link>
            <description><![CDATA[This report describes the mathematics performance of grade 4 students with disabilities across schools categorized by need-to-resource capacity and compares their performance by school with that of general education students across New York State from 2003 to 2005. Three research questions are examined: (1) What is the mathematics performance of public school grade 4 students with disabilities in New York State? (2) How has the performance of grade 4 students with disabilities and grade 4 general education students changed over time? and (3) What is the gap in proficiency percentages between grade 4 general education students and grade 4 students with disabilities? The report illustrates the types of analyses that state and district leaders can conduct with publicly reported data, along with the ways the findings can be interpreted. Limitations of the analyses include examining cross-sectional data on the percentage of proficient students rather than examining longitudinal data on actual student scores, lacking information on types and severity of disabilities, and applying the district-level need-to-resource-capacity categorization at the school level. Findings indicate that the percentage of students with disabilities scoring proficient increased over time and that the proficiency gap between this subgroup and general education students narrowed by 1 percentage point. Performance trends in the Northeast and Islands Region mirror those of the country. Findings and limitations may be important as states move forward in analyzing subgroup performance and proficiency gap data and in making data-driven decisions. Three appendixes include: (1) Data sources, exclusions, and limitations; (2) Student and school composition of need-to-resource-capacity categories; and (3) Supplemental figures on student performance. (Contains 4 notes, 13 figures, and 8 tables.) [This report was prepared for the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) by Regional Educational Laboratory Northeast and Islands administered by Education Development Center, Inc.]]]></description>
            <author>Buckley, Katie;  Ehrlich,  Stacy;  Midouhas, Emily;  Brodesky, Amy;  </author>
            <pubDate>2008-08-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Mathematics Education</category>
            
            <category> Mathematics Achievement</category>
            
            <category> Disabilities</category>
            
            <category> Grade 4</category>
            
            <category> Elementary School Students</category>
            
            <category> General Education</category>
            
            <category> Comparative Analysis</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED506343</guid>
            <title>ED506343 - Math Education Practices for Students with Disabilities and Other Struggling Learners: Case Studies of Six Schools in Two Northeast and Islands Region States. Issues &amp; Answers. REL 2008-No. 053</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED506343</link>
            <description><![CDATA[The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 requires states to ensure that all students make  adequate yearly progress in achieving proficiency in English language arts and math. This  study examines how six diverse schools have responded to the challenge of educating their  students in math, particularly students with disabilities and other struggling learners. The  report intends to help educators by providing examples and ideas to consider for their own school or district efforts to improve math teaching and learning. This report describes in-depth practices at six schools (3 in Massachusetts and 3 in New York) that are making targeted efforts to improve math education for students with disabilities and other struggling learners. It examines each school's practices for improving the math learning of all students as well as specific supports for students with disabilities and other struggling learners and identifies the challenges that schools face to serve students with diverse needs. Although each school found its own ways of providing math instruction to students with disabilities and other struggling learners, many schools adopted similar practices, including: (1) Classroom math instruction; (2) Math supports and interventions; (3) Assessment; (4) Collaboration among teachers; (5) Professional development; (6) Leadership; and (7) School culture. Findings from the study call for further research on how the roles of math specialists, schoolwide leadership practices, and different forms of teacher collaboration may affect math learning for students with disabilities and struggling learners. Three appendices are included: (1) Methodology; (2) Side by side summaries of characteristics and practices at the six case study schools; and (3) State assessment data for the six case study schools. (Contains 11 notes, 2 figures, 2 boxes and 54 tables.)]]></description>
            <author>Louie, Josephine;  Brodesky, Amy;  Brett, Jessica;  Yang, Li-Ming;  Tan, Yvette</author>
            <pubDate>2008-08-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>School Culture</category>
            
            <category> Federal Legislation</category>
            
            <category> Educational Improvement</category>
            
            <category> Federal Programs</category>
            
            <category> Learning Disabilities</category>
            
            <category> Teacher Collaboration</category>
            
            <category> Cooperation</category>
            
            <category> Program Effectiveness</category>
            
            <category> Educational Indicators</category>
            
            <category> Data Analysis</category>
            
            <category> Educational Legislation</category>
            
            <category> Mathematics Achievement</category>
            
            <category> Student Needs</category>
            
            <category> Intervention</category>
            
            <category> Student Evaluation</category>
            
            <category> Faculty Development</category>
            
            <category> Instructional Leadership</category>
            
            <category> Teaching Methods</category>
            
            <category> Problem Solving</category>
            
            <category> Case Studies</category>
            
            <category> Mathematics Education</category>
            
            <category> Slow Learners</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED502303</guid>
            <title>ED502303 - Calculating the Ability of Within-School Teacher Supply to Meet the Demands of New Requirements: The Example of the Michigan Merit Curriculum. REL Technical Brief. REL 2008-No. 005</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED502303</link>
            <description><![CDATA[Representatives from the Michigan Department of Education and the Center for Educational Performance and Information requested assistance in estimating Michigan's capacity to adequately staff its high schools to meet the course requirements of the new Michigan Merit Curriculum. The study team devised a formula to estimate the number of additional full-time equivalent (FTE) teachers needed for each subject at each Michigan high school. The formula was calculated using Michigan-specific values for key variables. Such an analysis may be particularly useful when new graduation or course requirements are being planned. Schools can adjust the variables in the formula (such as class size and number of periods taught  by each FTE teacher) to fit their own needs. Analysis of data for Michigan high schools identified a number of schools that were potentially understaffed in some or all subjects. The results show that 25 percent (223) of schools were potentially undersupplied in FTE teachers in math, 7 percent (64) in English/language arts, 5 percent (41) in science, and 4 percent (39) in social studies. The results also show that 13 percent (70,619) of students attended schools that were potentially undersupplied in FTE teachers in both math and English/language arts, while 2 percent (12,182) of students were in schools that were potentially undersupplied in all core subject areas. (Contains 3 endnotes and 1 table.) [This REL Technical Brief was prepared for the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) by Regional Educational Laboratory Midwest, administered by Learning Point Associates.]]]></description>
            <author>Keesler, Venessa;  Wyse, Adam;  Jones, Nathan;  Schneider, Barbara</author>
            <pubDate>2008-07-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>High Schools</category>
            
            <category> Data Analysis</category>
            
            <category> Teacher Supply and Demand</category>
            
            <category> Computation</category>
            
            <category> Graduation Requirements</category>
            
            <category> Resource Allocation</category>
            
            <category> Personnel Management</category>
            
            <category> Staff Utilization</category>
            
            <category> Full Time Equivalency</category>
            
            <category> Language Arts</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED502302</guid>
            <title>ED502302 - State Policies on Teacher Evaluation Practices in the Midwest Region. REL Technical Brief. REL 2008-No. 004</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED502302</link>
            <description><![CDATA[This technical brief describes state-level policies and procedural requirements for guiding teacher evaluation practices at the district level in the seven states served by the Midwest Regional Educational Laboratory: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin. Building on the Issues & Answers report "Examining District Guidance to Schools on Teacher Evaluation Policies in the Midwest Region" (Brandt et al. 2007), this technical brief reveals how teacher evaluation practices are addressed by state policies and other state-level initiatives that include teacher evaluation features. During June-August 2007 researchers completed a systematic search for publicly available policy data and conducted short interviews with key department of education staff in each of the seven Midwest Region states based on 13 key characteristics of teacher evaluation procedures used in previous large-scale investigations (Ellet and Garland 1987; Loup et al. 1996). Six of seven Midwest Region states have policies specifying criteria for evaluating teachers. Two states require specific resources to inform the evaluation, such as practice guides, models, or research-based frameworks. Two states require that administrators receive training to conduct the evaluation. None of the Midwest Region states has policies differentiating the criteria for evaluating teachers based on the student populations they teach or on their content-area expertise. The information is intended to provide policymakers and practitioners with a view of teacher evaluation policy at the state level in the Midwest Region. Details on methodology are appended. (Contains 5 tables.) [This REL Technical Brief was prepared for the Institute  of Education Sciences (IES) by Regional Educational Laboratory Midwest administered by Learning Point Associates.]]]></description>
            <author>Brandt, Chris;  Thomas, Julia;  Burke, Matt</author>
            <pubDate>2008-07-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Investigations</category>
            
            <category> Teacher Evaluation</category>
            
            <category> Politics of Education</category>
            
            <category> Laboratories</category>
            
            <category> State Departments of Education</category>
            
            <category> State Government</category>
            
            <category> Educational Policy</category>
            
            <category> State School District Relationship</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED502615</guid>
            <title>ED502615 - Implementation of the Weighted Student Formula Policy in San Francisco: A Descriptive Study of an Equity-Driven, Student-Based Planning and Budgeting Policy. Issues &amp; Answers. REL 2008-No. 061</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED502615</link>
            <description><![CDATA[This report describes the planning and implementation of San Francisco's weighted student formula policy, an equity-driven student-based planning and budgeting policy. It examines one district's policy goals, planning and implementation considerations, and how the policy interacted with other local, state, and federal policies. Although limited to one district, the report raises questions that might help education policymakers decide whether and how to implement a weighted student formula policy. Appended to this report is the methodology and a discussion guide. (Contains 4 boxes, 2 figures, and 5 tables) [This report was prepared for the National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education by Regional Educational Laboratory West administered by WestEd.]]]></description>
            <author>Shambaugh, Larisa S.;  Chambers, Jay G.;  DeLancey, Danielle</author>
            <pubDate>2008-08-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Educational Policy</category>
            
            <category> Research Utilization</category>
            
            <category> Politics of Education</category>
            
            <category> Budgeting</category>
            
            <category> Funding Formulas</category>
            
            <category> School Districts</category>
            
            <category> Equal Education</category>
            
            <category> Needs Assessment</category>
            
            <category> State School District Relationship</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED502499</guid>
            <title>ED502499 - Examining American Indian Perspectives in the Central Region on Parent Involvement in Children's Education. Issues &amp; Answers. REL 2008-No. 059</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED502499</link>
            <description><![CDATA[Parent involvement is recognized as an important factor in encouraging student achievement. However, a survey by the National Center for Education Statistics found that in public schools with 25 percent or more American Indian students, teachers identified lack of parent involvement as one of their schools' three most serious problems. At an August 2007 meeting, state-level policymakers identified as a high priority the need for research-based assistance on American Indian education and ways to close the achievement gaps among ethnic groups. To begin to address the regional need to close the achievement gap for American Indian students and specifically to effectively engage American Indian parents in their children's education, parent perceptions about involvement are needed. The purposes of this study were to examine how Central Region American Indian parents perceive parent involvement and to understand what encourages or discourages their involvement. Two Central Region communities were selected for data collection, based on expressed interest of the state education administrator and the support of the state Office of Indian Affairs. Additional criteria for selection included high populations of American Indian students and permission from school district administrators. Forty-seven self-selected American Indian parents, reflecting seven tribes from nine reservations, participated in five focus groups. An interview protocol guided focus group discussions around four main research questions: (1) What do American Indian parents perceive as parent involvement in their children's education? (2) Why do American Indian parents get involved? (3) What do parents perceive as barriers to involvement? and (4) Which school strategies do parents perceive encourage involvement? Many aspects of American Indian parent involvement were largely consistent with the literature on parent involvement in the general population as well as in other minority cultures. This study found that parent involvement was additionally influenced by parent-school differences in values and communication styles, perceptions of cultural competency in the staff and curricula, and a history of American Indian education policy of coercive assimilation that continues to influence parents. The challenges of increasing American Indian parent involvement reside in the overlay, and sometimes clashing, of cultures in the public schools. The study provides an initial step toward understanding American Indian parent involvement: it is pointed out that findings reflect the perspectives of American Indian parents; not those of school personnel. The report is intended for researchers, educators, and parents of American Indian students, as a basis for further research and informed dialogue to increase American Indian parent involvement and student academic achievement. Four appendixes include: (1) Research Methods; (2) Literature on American Indian Parent Involvement; (3) Focus Group Protocol; and (4) Focus Group Summaries. (Contains 5 endnotes and 1 table.) [This report was prepared for the National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education by Regional Education Laboratory Central administered by Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning.]]]></description>
            <author>Mackety, Dawn M.;  Linder-VanBerschot, Jennifer A.</author>
            <pubDate>2008-08-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Parent Participation</category>
            
            <category> Public Schools</category>
            
            <category> American Indians</category>
            
            <category> Parents</category>
            
            <category> Parent Attitudes</category>
            
            <category> Focus Groups</category>
            
            <category> American Indian Education</category>
            
            <category> Parent School Relationship</category>
            
            <category> Parent Student Relationship</category>
            
            <category> Cultural Differences</category>
            
            <category> Acculturation</category>
            
            <category> Educational Experience</category>
            
            <category> Problems</category>
            
            <category> Intercultural Communication</category>
            
            <category> Family Work Relationship</category>
            
            <category> School Culture</category>
            
            <category> Educational Environment</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED497956</guid>
            <title>ED497956 - The Students with Disabilities Subgroup and Adequate Yearly Progress in Mid-Atlantic Region Schools. Issues &amp; Answers. REL 2007-No. 018</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED497956</link>
            <description><![CDATA[The No Child Left Behind Act requires each state to set a series of annual targets to ensure that all students make adequate yearly progress in achieving proficiency in reading and mathematics by 2013/14. Schools must monitor annual progress toward proficiency goals for each of several subgroups, including students with disabilities, as well as for the entire student population. Each state sets a minimum group size (N-size) to determine whether a subgroup is sufficiently large to produce a statistically reliable participation rate for calculating its adequate yearly progress. If the number of students in a subgroup is lower than the minimum N-size, adequate yearly progress is not reported. This report focuses on the performance of the students with disabilities subgroup within the Mid-Atlantic Region. It describes for education leaders and policymakers how adequate yearly progress standards and targets are being set for this subgroup of students, provides data on its achievements, and offers evidence of how this subgroup's performance influences adequate yearly progress determinations in schools in the region. Besides providing a more comprehensive picture of this subgroup's performance, identifying differences in the achievements of students with disabilities may help to determine where important educational progress is being made and where it remains to be made. This report addresses four questions for the region: (1) What percentage of students enrolled in each state have been identified as members of the students with disabilities subgroup? (2) What percentage of schools in each state reported adequate yearly progress for the students with disabilities subgroup? (3) What percentage of schools in each state missed their adequate yearly progress targets for the students with disabilities subgroup? and (4) What percentage of schools in each state that missed their adequate yearly progress targets missed them solely because of the performance of the students with disabilities subgroup? Recommendations included: reconsider current policies; understand "relative" school progress; and strive for progress with students with disabilities. (Contains 1 box, 7 figures, and 7 tables.) [This report was prepared for the National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education by Regional Educational Laboratory Mid-Atlantic administered by Pennsylvania State University.]]]></description>
            <author>Johnson, Karen E.;  Peck, Kyle;  Wise, John</author>
            <pubDate>2007-07-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Educational Improvement</category>
            
            <category> Disabilities</category>
            
            <category> Federal Legislation</category>
            
            <category> Educational Legislation</category>
            
            <category> Educational Policy</category>
            
            <category> Academic Standards</category>
            
            <category> Educational Objectives</category>
            
            <category> Reading Achievement</category>
            
            <category> Mathematics Achievement</category>
            
            <category> Population Distribution</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED502394</guid>
            <title>ED502394 - The Status of the Preparation and Hiring of School Principals in the U.S.-Affiliated Pacific Region. REL Technical Brief. REL 2008-No. 006</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED502394</link>
            <description><![CDATA[This technical brief describes the current status of the preparation and hiring of school principals in the Pacific Region--American Samoa, Guam, Hawaii, Republic of the Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia (Chuuk, Kosrae, Pohnpei, and Yap), Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and Republic of Palau. The brief answers the question: what academic, practice-based, and standards and policy criteria are used in the preparation and hiring of principals? It finds that many jurisdictions have recent certification standards and policies and that procedures and criteria for preparing and hiring school principals vary across jurisdictions in models, requirements, and implementation levels. Requirements common to all jurisdictions are that principals must complete some college-level coursework and must have teaching experience. The preparation and hiring of principals are increasingly viewed by policymakers and education research professionals as fundamental to successful school reform and improved education outcomes. Although national baseline information on principal certification is available, less is known about certification requirements across the geography of the Pacific Region. Requests of regional state education agencies and the recommendation of Pacific Regional Educational Laboratory advisory groups to build on the "Issues & Answers" report "Preparing and Licensing High-Quality Teachers in Pacific Region Jurisdictions" motivated this study. The researchers designed a descriptive study to identify the certification policies and practices used in each jurisdiction. For each jurisdiction the study focused on identifying components of academic, practice-based, and standards and policy requirements for the certification of principals: certification linkage to standards-based protocols, types of certification offered, professional development offered and required, recognition of external certifications, minimum degree requirements, prior work experience required, practicum or internship requirements, approval requirements from institutions of higher education, and requirement of standardized assessments for certification. These components are common across national certification procedures. Researchers also collected background information on the number of principals employed and the number certified in each jurisdiction. An online search was conducted for publicly available documents and data. Data profiles, previously developed with each jurisdiction to collect information on current certification practices, were used to provide additional data when adequate information was not attainable in publicly available documents. (Contains 2 notes and 5 tables.) [This REL Technical Brief was prepared for Institute of Education Sciences (IES) by Regional  Educational Laboratory Pacific administered by Pacific Resources for Education and Learning.]]]></description>
            <author>Camblin, Sharon;  Keir, Scott</author>
            <pubDate>2008-08-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Principals</category>
            
            <category> Personnel Selection</category>
            
            <category> Degree Requirements</category>
            
            <category> Administrator Education</category>
            
            <category> Educational Change</category>
            
            <category> State Departments of Education</category>
            
            <category> Work Experience</category>
            
            <category> Teaching Experience</category>
            
            <category> Certification</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED503066</guid>
            <title>ED503066 - Aligning Mathematics Assessment Standards: Louisiana and the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). REL Technical Brief. REL 2008-No. 009</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED503066</link>
            <description><![CDATA[This technical brief examines the current alignment between the Louisiana Educational Assessment Program (LEAP) and Graduation Exit Examination (GEE) mathematics assessment standards and the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) mathematics framework. It looks at the extent to which current state assessment standards cover the content on which 2009 NAEP assessments will be based. Applying the methodology used by Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest in 2007 in a similar study that examined the alignment of LEAP and GEE science assessment standards with the 2009 NAEP, this study presents results for areas of full alignment, partial alignment, nonalignment, and areas where the LEAP and GEE assessment standards go beyond the NAEP standards. The study finds that 91 percent of NAEP grade 4, 90 percent of NAEP grade 8, and 72 percent of NAEP grade 12 assessment standards are either fully or partially addressed by the LEAP or GEE mathematics assessment standards. The study analyzes the alignment of the LEAP and GEE and 2009 NAEP mathematics assessment standards. It does not analyze individual items or the alignment of state standards with the LEAP and GEE assessment items. The study does not make specific recommendations about whether a state should close gaps in alignment to NAEP--a decision for state policymakers. Revising assessments requires substantial time and resources, so policymakers considering such revisions need to weigh the costs of such changes and the benefits they believe such changes will bring to students. (Contains 1 box, 2 notes, 9 tables, and 3 figures.) [This REL Technical Brief was prepared for the National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences (IES) by Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest administered by Edvance Research.]]]></description>
            <author>Shapley, Kathy L.;  Brite, Jessica</author>
            <pubDate>2008-10-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Alignment (Education)</category>
            
            <category> Core Curriculum</category>
            
            <category> State Standards</category>
            
            <category> National Competency Tests</category>
            
            <category> Mathematics Achievement</category>
            
            <category> Program Effectiveness</category>
            
            <category> Measurement Techniques</category>
            
            <category> Grade 4</category>
            
            <category> Grade 8</category>
            
            <category> Grade 12</category>
            
            <category> Government School Relationship</category>
            
            <category> Educational Legislation</category>
            
            <category> Course Content</category>
            
            <category> Exit Examinations</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED503063</guid>
            <title>ED503063 - Aligning Mathematics Assessment Standards: Oklahoma and the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). REL Technical Brief. REL 2008-No. 010  </title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED503063</link>
            <description><![CDATA[This technical brief examines the current alignment between Oklahoma Core Curriculum Tests (OCT) and the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAPE) mathematics framework. It looks at the extent to which current state assessment standards cover the content on which 2009 NAPE assessments will be based. Applying the methodology used by Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest in 2001 in a similar study that examined the alignment of Oklahoma science assessment standards with the 2009 NAPE, this study presents results for areas of full alignment, partial alignment, nonalignment, and areas where the OCT assessment standards go beyond the NAPE standards. The study finds that 85 percent of NAPE grade 4, 89 percent of NAPE grade 8, and 74 percent of NAPE grade 12 assessment standards are either fully or partially addressed by the OCT mathematics assessment standards. The study analyzes the alignment of the OCT and 2009 NAPE mathematics assessment standards. It does not analyze individual items or the alignment of state standards with the OCT assessment items. The study does not make specific recommendations about whether a state should close gaps in alignment to NAPE--a decision for state policymakers. Revising assessments requires substantial time and resources, so policymakers considering such revisions need to weigh the costs of such changes and the benefits they believe such changes will bring to students. (Contains 1 box, 7 tables, 3 figures, and 2 notes.) [This REL Technical Brief was prepared for the National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences (IES) by Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest administered by Edvance Research.]]]></description>
            <author>Shapley, Kathy L.;  Brite, Jessica</author>
            <pubDate>2008-10-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Alignment (Education)</category>
            
            <category> Core Curriculum</category>
            
            <category> State Standards</category>
            
            <category> National Competency Tests</category>
            
            <category> Mathematics Achievement</category>
            
            <category> Program Effectiveness</category>
            
            <category> Measurement Techniques</category>
            
            <category> Grade 4</category>
            
            <category> Grade 8</category>
            
            <category> Grade 12</category>
            
            <category> Government School Relationship</category>
            
            <category> Educational Legislation</category>
            
            <category> Course Content</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED503064</guid>
            <title>ED503064 - Aligning Mathematics Assessment Standards: Texas and the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). REL Technical Brief. REL 2008-No. 007</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED503064</link>
            <description><![CDATA[This Technical Brief examines the alignment between the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) mathematics assessment standards and the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) mathematics framework. It looks at the extent to which current state assessment standards cover the content on which 2009 NAEP assessments will be based. Applying the methodology used by Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest in 2007 in a similar study that examined the alignment of TAKS science assessment standards with the 2009 NAEP (http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/projects/project.asp?projectID=76&productID=36), this study presents results for areas of full alignment, partial alignment, nonalignment, and areas where the TAKS assessment standards go beyond the NAEP standards. The study finds that 74 percent of the NAEP grade 4, 81 percent of the NAEP grade 8, and 71 percent of the NAEP grade 12 assessment standards are either fully or partially addressed by the TAKS assessment standards. The study analyzes the alignment of the TAKS and the 2009 NAEP mathematics assessment standards. It does not analyze individual items or the alignment of state standards with the TAKS assessment items. The study does not make specific recommendations about whether a state should close gaps in alignment to the NAEP--a decision for state policymakers. Revising assessments requires substantial time and resources, so policymakers considering such revisions need to weigh the costs of such changes and the benefits they believe such changes will bring to students. (Contains 1 box, 8 tables, 2 figures, and 2 notes.) [This REL Technical Brief was prepared for the National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences (IES) by Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest administered by Edvance Research.]]]></description>
            <author>Shapley, Kathy L.;  Brite, Jessica</author>
            <pubDate>2008-10-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Alignment (Education)</category>
            
            <category> Core Curriculum</category>
            
            <category> State Standards</category>
            
            <category> National Competency Tests</category>
            
            <category> Mathematics Achievement</category>
            
            <category> Program Effectiveness</category>
            
            <category> Measurement Techniques</category>
            
            <category> Grade 4</category>
            
            <category> Grade 8</category>
            
            <category> Grade 12</category>
            
            <category> Government School Relationship</category>
            
            <category> Educational Legislation</category>
            
            <category> Course Content</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED503065</guid>
            <title>ED503065 - Aligning Mathematics Assessment Standards: Arkansas and the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). REL Technical Brief. REL 2008-No. 008</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED503065</link>
            <description><![CDATA[This Technical Brief examines the current alignment between the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment, and Accountability Program (ACTAAP) mathematics assessment standards and the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) mathematics framework. It looks at the extent to which current state assessment standards cover the content on which 2009 NAEP assessments will be based. Applying the methodology used by Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest in 2007 in a similar study that examined the alignment of ACTAAP science assessment standards with the 2009 NAEP, this study presents results for areas of full alignment, partial alignment, nonalignment, and areas where the ACTAAP assessment standards go beyond the NAEP standards. The study finds that 78 percent of NAEP grade 4, 84 percent of NAEP grade 8, and 72 percent of NAEP grade 12 assessment standards are either fully or partially addressed by the ACTAAP assessment standards. The study analyzes the alignment of the ACTAAP and 2009 NAEP mathematics assessment standards. It does not analyze individual items or the alignment of state standards with the ACTAAP assessment items. The study does not make specific recommendations about whether a state should close gaps in alignment to NAEP--a decision for state policymakers. Revising assessments requires substantial time and resources, so policymakers considering such revisions need to weigh the costs of such changes and the benefits they believe such changes will bring to students. (Contains 1 box, 8 tables, 2 notes, and 2 figures.) [This REL Technical Brief was prepared for the National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences (IES) by Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest administered by Edvance Research.]]]></description>
            <author>Shapley, Kathy L.;  Brite, Jessica</author>
            <pubDate>2008-10-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Alignment (Education)</category>
            
            <category> Core Curriculum</category>
            
            <category> State Standards</category>
            
            <category> National Competency Tests</category>
            
            <category> Mathematics Achievement</category>
            
            <category> Program Effectiveness</category>
            
            <category> Measurement Techniques</category>
            
            <category> Grade 4</category>
            
            <category> Grade 8</category>
            
            <category> Grade 12</category>
            
            <category> Government School Relationship</category>
            
            <category> Educational Legislation</category>
            
            <category> Course Content</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED503062</guid>
            <title>ED503062 - Aligning Mathematics Assessment Standards: New Mexico and the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). REL Technical Brief. REL 2008-No. 011  </title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED503062</link>
            <description><![CDATA[This technical brief examines the current alignment between the New Mexico Standards Based Assessment (NMSBA) standards and the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) mathematics framework. It looks at the extent to which current state assessment standards cover the content on which 2009 NAEP assessments will be based. Applying the methodology used by Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest in 2007 in a similar study that examined the alignment of New Mexico science standards with the 2009 NAEP, this study presents results for areas of full alignment, partial alignment, nonalignment, and areas where the NMSBA assessment standards go beyond the NAEP standards. The study finds that 92 percent of NAEP grade 4, 94 percent of NAEP grade 8, and 80 percent of NAEP grade 12 assessment standards (aligned with current NMSBA assessment  standards) and 77 percent of NAEP grade 12 assessment standards (aligned with proposed NMSBA assessment standards) are either fully or partially addressed by the NMSBA assessment standards. The study analyzes the alignment of the NMSBA and 2009 NAEP mathematics assessment standards. It does not analyze individual items or the alignment of state standards with the NMSBA assessment items. The study does not make specific recommendations about whether a state should close gaps in alignment to NAEP--a decision for state policymakers. Revising assessments requires substantial time and resources, so policymakers considering such revisions need to weigh the costs of such changes and the benefits they believe such changes will bring to students. (Contains 15 tables, 4 figures and 2 notes.)]]></description>
            <author>Shapley, Kathy L.;  Brite, Jessica</author>
            <pubDate>2008-10-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Alignment (Education)</category>
            
            <category> Core Curriculum</category>
            
            <category> State Standards</category>
            
            <category> National Competency Tests</category>
            
            <category> Mathematics Achievement</category>
            
            <category> Program Effectiveness</category>
            
            <category> Measurement Techniques</category>
            
            <category> Grade 4</category>
            
            <category> Grade 8</category>
            
            <category> Grade 12</category>
            
            <category> Government School Relationship</category>
            
            <category> Educational Legislation</category>
            
            <category> Course Content</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED503465</guid>
            <title>ED503465 - Preparing Elementary School Teachers in the Southeast Region to Work with Students with Disabilities: Summary. Issues &amp; Answers. REL 2008-No. 065</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED503465</link>
            <description><![CDATA[The study examines the extent to which elementary education teacher preparation programs in 36 randomly selected colleges and universities in the six Southeast Region states integrate content related to students with disabilities. Findings indicate that a variety of strategies are utilized to integrate disability content into teacher preparation programs, including: (1) Pursuing a program mission with disability-focused priorities; (2) Requiring disability-focused courses; (3) Embedding disability content in other required courses; (4) Incorporating disability content into field experiences; (5) Aligning mission and coursework requirements; (6) Sharing course experiences between general and special education; and (7) Practicing collaborative program design. Most programs require one disability-focused course, two-thirds incorporate fieldwork related to students with disabilities, and more than half incorporate disability content into their mission statements. The report seeks to inform the discussions of state policymakers and teacher preparation leaders as they work to improve teacher quality through better teacher preparation, offering 3 key points for consideration: (1) Disability content is integrated in teacher preparation programs through various approaches and to varying degrees in the Southeast Region; (2) In both mission statements and core courses disability is frequently associated with diversity; and (3) Small teacher preparation programs face particular challenges in integrating disability content. [For full report, see ED503464.]]]></description>
            <author>Holland, Dana;  Detgen, Amy;  Gutekunst, Lindsay</author>
            <pubDate>2008-11-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Preservice Teacher Education</category>
            
            <category> Required Courses</category>
            
            <category> Program Design</category>
            
            <category> Teacher Effectiveness</category>
            
            <category> Elementary Education</category>
            
            <category> Disabilities</category>
            
            <category> Field Experience Programs</category>
            
            <category> Elementary School Teachers</category>
            
            <category> Elementary School Students</category>
            
            <category> Special Education</category>
            
            <category> Integrated Curriculum</category>
            
            <category> Alignment (Education)</category>
            
            <category> Teacher Educators</category>
            
            <category> Educational Policy</category>
            
            <category> State Officials</category>
            
            <category> Regular and Special Education Relationship</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED503464</guid>
            <title>ED503464 - Preparing Elementary School Teachers in the Southeast Region to Work With Students With Disabilities. Issues &amp; Answers. REL 2008-No. 065</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED503464</link>
            <description><![CDATA[The study examines the extent to which elementary education teacher preparation programs in 36 randomly selected colleges and universities in the six Southeast Region states integrate content related to students with disabilities. Findings indicate that a variety of strategies are utilized to integrate disability content into teacher preparation programs, including: (1) Pursuing a program mission with disability-focused priorities; (2) Requiring disability-focused courses; (3) Embedding disability content in other required courses; (4) Incorporating disability content into field experiences; (5) Aligning mission and coursework requirements; (6) Sharing course experiences between general and special education; and (7) Practicing collaborative program design. Most programs require one disability-focused course, two-thirds incorporate fieldwork related to students with disabilities, and more than half incorporate disability content into their mission statements. The report seeks to inform the discussions of state policymakers and teacher preparation leaders as they work to improve teacher quality through better teacher preparation, offering 3 key points for consideration: (1) Disability content is integrated in teacher preparation programs through various approaches and to varying degrees in the Southeast Region; (2) In both mission statements and core courses disability is frequently associated with diversity; and (3) Small teacher preparation programs face particular challenges in integrating disability content. Four appendices are included: (1) Methodology; (2) The Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium 2001 Model Standards for Licensing General and Special Education Teachers of Students with Disabilities; (3) Courses shared by elementary and special education programs; and (4) Teacher preparation licensing options in the Southeast Region states. (Contains notes, 2 boxes, 8 figures and 11 tables.) [For summary report, see ED503465.]]]></description>
            <author>Holland, Dana;  Detgen, Amy;  Gutekunst, Lindsay</author>
            <pubDate>2008-11-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Required Courses</category>
            
            <category> Program Design</category>
            
            <category> Teacher Effectiveness</category>
            
            <category> Elementary Education</category>
            
            <category> Disabilities</category>
            
            <category> Field Experience Programs</category>
            
            <category> Special Education Teachers</category>
            
            <category> Certification</category>
            
            <category> Elementary School Teachers</category>
            
            <category> Special Education</category>
            
            <category> Preservice Teacher Education</category>
            
            <category> Elementary School Students</category>
            
            <category> Integrated Curriculum</category>
            
            <category> Alignment (Education)</category>
            
            <category> Teacher Educators</category>
            
            <category> Educational Policy</category>
            
            <category> State Officials</category>
            
            <category> Regular and Special Education Relationship</category>
            
            <category> Statistical Analysis</category>
            
            <category> Qualitative Research</category>
            
            <category> Data Collection</category>
            
            <category> Interviews</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED499099</guid>
            <title>ED499099 - The Predictive Validity of Selected Benchmark Assessments Used in the Mid-Atlantic Region. Issues &amp; Answers. REL 2007-No. 017</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED499099</link>
            <description><![CDATA[This report examines the availability and quality of predictive validity data for a selection of benchmark assessments identified by state and district personnel as in use within Mid-Atlantic Region jurisdictions. Based on a review of practices within the school districts in the region, this report details the benchmark assessments being used, in which states and grade levels, and the technical evidence available to support the use of these assessments for predictive purposes. The report also summarizes the findings of conversations with test publishing company personnel and of technical reports, administrative manuals, and similar materials. The study investigates the evidence provided to establish a relationship between district and state test scores, and between performance on district-administered benchmark assessments and proficiency levels on state assessments. When particular district benchmark assessments cover only a subset of state test content, the study sought evidence of whether district tests correlate not only with overall performance on the state test, but also with relevant subsections of the state test. While the commonly used benchmark assessments in the Mid-Atlantic Region jurisdictions may possess strong internal psychometric characteristics, the report finds that evidence is generally lacking of their predictive validity with respect to the required state or summative assessments. To provide the jurisdictions with additional information on the predictive validity of the benchmark assessments currently used, further research is needed linking these assessments and the state tests currently in use. Additional research could help to develop the type of predictive validity evidence school districts need to make informed decisions about which benchmark assessments correspond to state assessment outcomes, increasing potential success of instructional decisions meant to improve student learning as measured by state tests. The following are appended: (1) Methodology; (2) Glossary; and (3) Detailed Findings of Benchmark Assessment Analysis.(Contains 2 endnotes, 31 tables, and 2 boxes.) [This document was produced by the Mid-Atlantic Regional Educational Laboratory at Pennsylvania State University.]]]></description>
            <author>Brown, Richard S.;  Coughlin, Ed</author>
            <pubDate>2007-11-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Test Content</category>
            
            <category> Academic Achievement</category>
            
            <category> Predictive Validity</category>
            
            <category> Program Effectiveness</category>
            
            <category> School Districts</category>
            
            <category> Psychometrics</category>
            
            <category> Benchmarking</category>
            
            <category> Scores</category>
            
            <category> State Standards</category>
            
            <category> Testing Programs</category>
            
            <category> Standardized Tests</category>
            
            <category> Test Validity</category>
            
            <category> Test Reliability</category>
            
            <category> Student Evaluation</category>
            
            <category> Evaluation Methods</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED503137</guid>
            <title>ED503137 - Developing the "Compendium of Strategies to Reduce Teacher Turnover in the Northeast and Islands Region." A Companion to the Database. Issues &amp; Answers. REL 2008-No. 052</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED503137</link>
            <description><![CDATA[This report provides state-, regional-, and district-level decisionmakers in the Northeast and Islands Region with a description of the "Compendium of Strategies to Reduce Teacher Turnover in the Northeast and Islands Region," a searchable database of selected profiles  of retention strategies implemented in Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, and Vermont. The first section of the report provides a brief overview of current research on the impact of teacher turnover on schools and teachers, describes the size and scope of the teacher turnover problem nationally and its impacts on the Northeast and Islands Region, and details the objectives of the Compendium project--its intended purpose and audience. The second section provides an overview of the policy families used to classify and organize the profiles and defines the types of retention policies and programs addressed in the Compendium. Finally, the third section presents the limitations and observations about the study. Appended are: (1) Methodology; (2) Sample Letters to Potential Contacts; and (3) Users Guide for Reading and Navigating the Compendium. (Contains 4 boxes, 3 figures, and 11 tables.) [This report was prepared for the National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences (IES) by Regional Educational Laboratory Northeast and Islands administered by Education Development Center, Inc.]]]></description>
            <author>Ellis, Pamela;  Grogan, Marian;  Levy, Abigail Jurist;  Tucker-Seeley, Kevon</author>
            <pubDate>2008-09-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Teacher Persistence</category>
            
            <category> Profiles</category>
            
            <category> Databases</category>
            
            <category> Faculty Mobility</category>
            
            <category> Mathematics Education</category>
            
            <category> Science Programs</category>
            
            <category> Science Education</category>
            
            <category> Reading Instruction</category>
            
            <category> Comparative Analysis</category>
            
            <category> Evaluation</category>
            
            <category> Teacher Effectiveness</category>
            
            <category> Beginning Teachers</category>
            
            <category> Preservice Teachers</category>
            
            <category> Mentors</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED502699</guid>
            <title>ED502699 - Examining Context and Challenges in Measuring Investment in Professional Development: A Case Study of Six School Districts in the Southwest Region. Issues &amp; Answers. REL 2008-No. 037</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED502699</link>
            <description><![CDATA[This descriptive analysis illustrates some of the challenges in measuring investment in professional development and concludes by highlighting a promising strategy using online data systems that might improve the accuracy of spending estimates and the tracking of expenditures. Previous literature defines two categories of professional development: traditional professional development, such as workshops, conferences, and college courses for credit, and integrated professional development, such as teacher collaboration during common planning periods, teacher mentoring, academic coaches, observation of others, and individual research projects. This study adapts the conceptual framework established by Odden et al. (2002) to derive cost estimates of professional development in the sample districts. Data sources were identified for six districts in four states in the Southwest Region to determine how much these districts were spending on professional development. Before initial contact with the targeted districts, state and district policies and practices likely to influence investment in professional development were investigated. The four states covered by this study require districts to develop formal plans for implementing professional development. These planning documents were obtained from the six districts in advance of data collection and helped identify the potential financial implications of implementing professional development. The framework from Odden et al. (2002) was used to identify data sources that could estimate the six districts' total investment in professional development and disaggregate the total by object of expenditure , function, and source of funding. Based on these six districts' data, an estimated 2-9 percent of district spending was allocated to professional development activities. As with previous studies, this may underestimate investment because of the difficulty of obtaining accurate data on professional development that is more integrated into the daily and weekly work of teachers. Future research could explore how feasible online systems would be for obtaining more accurate data on the time allocation of education professionals to better estimate the cost of professional development. Three appendixes are included: (1) Recruitment of Districts in the Study's Sample; (2) Cost Analysis Framework; and (3) Policies and Characteristics of State and District Professional Development. (Contains 13 notes, 2 boxes, and 7 tables.) [This report was prepared for the National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences (IES) by Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest administered by Edvance Research, Inc.]]]></description>
            <author>Chambers, Jay G.;  Lam, Irene;  Mahitivanichcha, Kanya</author>
            <pubDate>2008-09-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Professional Development</category>
            
            <category> Costs</category>
            
            <category> Online Systems</category>
            
            <category> Expenditures</category>
            
            <category> Educational Finance</category>
            
            <category> School District Spending</category>
            
            <category> Mentors</category>
            
            <category> Teacher Collaboration</category>
            
            <category> Time Management</category>
            
            <category> Financial Audits</category>
            
            <category> Money Management</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>

        <item>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">ED502274</guid>
            <title>ED502274 - Reenrollment of High School Dropouts in a Large, Urban School District. Issues &amp; Answers. REL 2008-No. 056</title>
            <link>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED502274</link>
            <description><![CDATA[This study follows a cohort of first-time 9th graders in San Bernardino City Unified School District from 2001/01 to 2005/06 and documents their dropout, reenrollment, and graduation rates. For the one-third of dropouts who reenrolled in the district over that period, it reports course credit accrual and graduation outcomes as well as students' reasons for dropping out and the challenges districts face with their reenrollment. By focusing on reenrollees,  this study contributes to shaping policy that addresses the broader dropout challenge. Appended are methodology, tables with details on census characteristics, and interview protocols. (Contains 1 box, 8 figures, 10 tables, and 14 notes.) [This report was prepared for the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) by Regional Educational Laboratory West administered by WestEd.]]]></description>
            <author>Berliner, BethAnn;  Barrat, Vanessa X.;  Fong, Anthony B.;  Shirk, Paul B.</author>
            <pubDate>2008-07-00</pubDate>
            
            <category>Urban Schools</category>
            
            <category> School Districts</category>
            
            <category> Dropouts</category>
            
            <category> Grade 9</category>
            
            <category> High School Students</category>
            
            <category> Graduation Rate</category>
            
            <category> Reentry Students</category>
            
            <category> Enrollment Influences</category>
            
            <category> Student Characteristics</category>
            
            <category> Intervention</category>
            
            <category> Accountability</category>
            
            <category> Financial Support</category>
            
            <category> Continuation Students</category>

            <comments></comments>
        </item>
    
    </channel>
</rss>
