Your search found 158644 results.

Descriptors:
Minority Groups; Minority Group Students; Educational Change; Best Practices; Community Support; Public Education; Federal Legislation; Educational Legislation; Academic Achievement; Achievement Gap; Educational Improvement; Academic Standards; Accountability; Financial Support; School Choice; Principals; Mathematics Achievement; Reading Achievement; Science Achievement; Expenditure per Student; Graduation Rate

Abstract:
It's been a decade since former President Bush proposed and Congress passed the No Child Left Behind law. The goal of this law was to raise student achievement and reduce the gap between different groups of students, especially white and minority students. The law's passage reflected a broad consensus among elected officials, business leaders and others that American schools can and should do better. With his election in 2008, President Obama has continued the reform movement. His Race to the Top initiative aims to promote policies that encourage adoption of best practices for better student learning. Around the country, governors, mayors, and other state and local officials have also worked to propel changes designed to ramp up student learning. Nearly all education leaders and politicians at the national, state and local levels emphasize how crucial good schools are to progress as a nation. But even though many may use similar words and rhetoric to talk about public education, there are actually strongly competing visions among policymakers about what works best. This paper offers four approaches that work best in improving student learning. These include: (1) Set high standards and hold schools, teachers and principals accountable for helping all children meet them; (2) Give parents more choice about the schools their children go to; (3) Give public schools the financial and community support they need to help all children learn; and (4) Make sure every school has a talented, committed principal who will work closely with teachers to transform what happens inside the school every day. (Contains 11 resources.) [Funding for this paper was provided by the Dilenschneider Group.] Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (5229K)

Descriptors:
Academic Achievement; State Standards; Resource Allocation; Teaching Methods; State Agencies; Educational Change; Early Childhood Education; Elementary Secondary Education; Public Policy; Alignment (Education); Government Role; State Government; Academic Standards; College Readiness; Career Readiness; Educational Objectives; Goal Orientation; Educational Assessment; Student Evaluation; Accountability; Leadership; Governance; Teacher Education; Professional Development

Abstract:
To increase student learning and achievement, more and more states are pursuing reforms in "both" early care and education (ECE) programs and the K-12 education system. Many states are implementing the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) to promote all students' readiness for college and careers, while engaging in reforms prompted by the Race to the Top-Early Learning Challenge (RTTT-ELC) grant competition to expand children's access to high-quality programs for early learning. Ideally, these initiatives would support and reinforce each other's goals and approaches to education--especially across the birth-to-grade 3 continuum, when research shows children acquire critical skills for academic success. Well-aligned ECE and K-12 reforms and policies would enable states to develop common expectations on what children need to know and be able to do as they transition from early childhood programs to the primary grades. Unfortunately, in most cases, aligning reforms in the early learning and K-12 systems is challenging. Typically, these efforts are led by different state entities and policymakers with limited knowledge of one another's goals and strategies. ECE and K-12 leaders also tend to have different approaches to teaching and learning and even different beliefs about the objectives. As policymakers who have the responsibility for the well-being and education of children of all ages, governors are uniquely situated to bring state agencies together and develop a coordinated strategy to align ECE and K-12 policies so they better serve all children, starting at birth. Doing so requires leaders from both systems to analyze what their respective goals, approaches, and reform strategies have in common and how they differ. This process can help governors, their staff, and other state policy leaders develop concrete action steps that promote greater alignment of ECE and K-12 reforms in key areas: (1) Leadership and Governance; (2) Learning Standards; (3) Child Assessments; (4) Accountability; (5) Teacher/Leader Preparation and Professional Development; and (6) Resource Allocation and Reallocation. (Contains 23 endnotes and 4 resources.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (407K)

Descriptors:
Graduation Requirements; Higher Education; Educational Finance; Educational Attainment; Kindergarten; Graduation; Public Education; Elementary Secondary Education; Master Plans; Preschool Education; Access to Education; Teacher Supply and Demand; State Boards of Education; College Admission; Education Work Relationship; Partnerships in Education; High Schools; Academic Standards; State Standards; Accountability; Academic Achievement; Educational Indicators; Educational Improvement; College Readiness; Graduation Rate; Career Readiness; Alignment (Education)

Abstract:
This paper complies with the requirements established in T.C.A. Section 49-1-302(a)(10). The act directs the State Board of Education and the Tennessee Higher Education Commission to provide a report to the Governor and General Assembly, all public schools, and institutions of higher learning and their respective boards. This report is to include, but is not limited to, a discussion of the following four areas: (1) Minimizing Duplication: The extent of duplication in elementary, secondary and postsecondary education; (2) Compatibility: The extent of compatibility between high school graduation requirements and admission requirements of postsecondary institutions; (3) Master Plan Fulfillment: The extent to which respective master plans of the board and the higher education commission are being fulfilled; and (4) State Needs in Public Education: The extent to which state needs in public education are being met as determined by such board and commission. This year's joint report marks the continuation of a new era for education in Tennessee, which began during the special session of the 106th General Assembly (2010) and included passage of the First to the Top and the Complete College Tennessee Acts. Both Acts focus on raising the level of statewide accountability and support in K-12 schools and institutions of higher education. Legislation from the 106th General Assembly provides the framework for collaboration between all state systems of education, addressing the overarching need to produce a higher proportion of college- and career-ready graduates. Tennessee will use this framework to make significant progress toward increasing postsecondary educational attainment to the national average by 2025. Appended are: (1) Tennessee High School Graduation Requirements; (2) Minimum High School Course Requirements for Regular Undergraduate Admissions to Tennessee Public Higher Education Institutions; and (3) Tennessee College and Career Ready Goals and Indicators. (Contains 3 tables, 1 figure and 3 footnotes.) [For "Annual Joint Report on Pre-Kindergarten through Higher Education in Tennessee, 2012", see ED540084.] Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (350K)

Descriptors:
Teacher Effectiveness; State Standards; Educational Change; Graduation; Public Education; Graduation Rate; Academic Standards; Educational Legislation; Federal Legislation; Accountability; Elementary Secondary Education; Small Schools; High Schools; Economics; Education Work Relationship; Teacher Education; Outcomes of Education; Conferences (Gatherings); Educational Quality; Academic Achievement

Abstract:
"Straight A's: Public Education Policy and Progress" is a biweekly newsletter that focuses on education news and events both in Washington, DC and around the country. The following articles are included in this issue: (1) House Committee Passes Education Reform Legislation: On Party-Line Votes, Committee Passes Accountability and Teacher Effectiveness Bills as Part of Work Rewriting NCLB; (2) Alliance President to Serve on National Commission on Educator Preparation; (3) Marked Improvement: New York City's Small High Schools of Choice Boost Graduation Rates by 8.6 Percentage Points, MDRC Analysis Finds; and (4) State of the States: Governors Stress Education-Economy Link, NCLB Waivers, High School Graduation Rates, and Common Core State Standards. Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Elementary Secondary Education; Federal Legislation; Academic Achievement; Achievement Gap; Educational Change; Rewards; Accountability; Presidents; School Restructuring; Politics of Education; Academic Standards; Intervention; Recognition (Achievement); School District Autonomy

Abstract:
"No Child Left Behind" (NCLB) has helped focus the conversation about school reform on student achievement. It shines a bright light on the achievement gap. For the first time, schools are reporting information about how they are serving all students. NCLB has many flaws. President Obama's blueprint for reform will fix NCLB's flaws by: (1) Asking states to set standards that prepare students for college and careers; (2) Creating a fair accountability system that recognizes and rewards growth and progress; (3) Providing flexibility to state and local educators to innovate and create local solutions; and (4) Focusing rigorous, meaningful interventions and support for the lowest-performing schools that also have not demonstrated any progress. [For related report, "A Blueprint for Reform. The Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act," see ED508795.] Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (1051K)

Descriptors:
State Standards; Accountability; Public Education; Elementary Secondary Education; Federal Legislation; Educational Improvement; Academic Standards; Educational Legislation; Educational Assessment; Academic Achievement; Compliance (Legal); Educational Objectives; Goal Orientation; Federal Programs; Educational Indicators; Low Achievement; Intervention; Access to Information; Disclosure; Elementary School Students; Secondary School Students

Abstract:
In September 2011, the Obama Administration invited states to apply for waivers of key requirements of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). The Administration's waiver initiative offers states the flexibility to move away from the flawed provisions of NCLB, including several significant requirements intended to hold schools accountable for raising student achievement. The waivers also give states a chance to design new accountability systems that incorporate the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and common assessments being developed with the leadership and cooperation of many states. As of September 1, 2012, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) had approved waiver applications from 33 states and D.C. These waivers will remain in effect through 2013-14, and states will have to request an extension for future years. This report highlights issues to watch over the next few years as states with waivers implement new accountability systems. For each of the issues discussed in this report, the authors have tried to consider the implications for public education systems, teachers, and students. The discussion must be speculative because the new systems are just getting underway, and key details have yet to be determined in some states. Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (80K)

Descriptors:
Academic Achievement; Academic Standards; Accountability; Achievement Gap; Administrator Effectiveness; Alignment (Education); Budgets; Career Readiness; Charter Schools; College Readiness; Core Curriculum; Data; Educational Assessment; Educational Change; Educational Improvement; Elementary Secondary Education; Federal Legislation; Formative Evaluation; Grants; Higher Education; Language Arts; Leadership Effectiveness; Literacy; Low Achievement; Mathematics Achievement; Measurement Objectives; Models; Outcomes of Education; Partnerships in Education; Poverty; Principals; Professional Development; Program Effectiveness; Program Implementation; School Districts; School Effectiveness; School Turnaround; State Government; State Standards; STEM Education; Teacher Effectiveness; Teacher Evaluation

Abstract:
This State-specific summary report serves as an assessment of Tennessee's second year of Race to the Top implementation. The report highlights successes and accomplishments, identifies challenges, and provides lessons learned from implementation from approximately September 2011 through September 2012. During Year 2, the Tennessee Department of Education (TDOE) revamped its approach to project management to ensure meaningful project oversight and revised project work plans and goals that focus on measuring project performance and impact at the State educational agency (SEA) level. The State also participated in partnership meetings with local educational agencies (LEAs) to build relationships focused on data and collaborative problem solving. These meetings reinforced the State's goal of transitioning from compliance monitoring to a more collaborative role as LEAs implemented their Race to the Top plans. Although Tennessee made excellent progress in Year 2, it still faced challenges as it rolled out the Tennessee Educator Acceleration Model (TEAM) and the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), built data systems to support instruction, and expanded its science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) network. Moving into Year 3 of its grant, Tennessee plans to build on its accomplishments and address its challenges from Year 2. The State is reassessing its implementation plans in several reform areas to ensure continuous improvement and effective implementation. For example, the State is making changes to its educator evaluation system to address feedback from teachers and principals. In addition, TDOE is enhancing its existing Field Service Centers (FSCs) to provide content-specific supports to LEAs and schools. The FSCs will now be called Centers of Regional Excellence (COREs) and will leverage the existing strengths of FSCs and add additional capacities to provide support to LEAs as they implement the CCSS and the new evaluation system. The State's plans for Years 3 and 4 rely heavily on effective CORE implementation, highlighting the need for the State to establish high-quality centers and mechanisms to assess their effectiveness. A glossary is included. (Contains 20 footnotes.) [For "Race to the Top. Tennessee Report. Year 1: School Year 2010-2011. [State-Specific Summary Report]," see ED529330.] Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (1550K)

Descriptors:
Academic Achievement; Academic Standards; Accountability; Achievement Gap; Administrator Effectiveness; Alignment (Education); Budgets; Career Readiness; Charter Schools; College Readiness; Core Curriculum; Data; Educational Assessment; Educational Change; Educational Improvement; Elementary Secondary Education; Federal Legislation; Formative Evaluation; Grants; Higher Education; Language Arts; Leadership Effectiveness; Literacy; Low Achievement; Mathematics Achievement; Measurement Objectives; Models; Outcomes of Education; Partnerships in Education; Poverty; Principals; Professional Development; Program Effectiveness; Program Implementation; School Districts; School Effectiveness; School Turnaround; State Government; State Standards; STEM Education; Teacher Effectiveness; Teacher Evaluation

Abstract:
This State-specific summary report serves as an assessment of Rhode Island's Year 2 Race to the Top implementation, highlighting successes and accomplishments, identifying challenges, and providing lessons learned from implementation from approximately September 2011 through September 2012. In Year 2, Rhode Island Department of Education (RIDE) and local educational agencies (LEAs) created curricular resources to assist educators in transitioning to the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), including 10 model curricula in core subjects. RIDE exceeded its goal of training 4,100 educators on CCSS; 5,800 educators attended Study of the Standards sessions during the first two years of Race to the Top implementation. Additionally, the State developed four modules to train educators in formative assessment practices and piloted these modules in six schools in SY 2011-2012. Although RIDE exceeded its CCSS training goals, it is unclear whether all LEAs will be ready to fully implement the CCSS by SY 2013-2014, particularly those LEAs that did not participate in the State's curricular development work. RIDE made revisions to the educator evaluation system to increase the weight of the Student Learning Objectives (SLOs) component, a change that will require RIDE to provide additional support to ensure that educators and LEAs implement SLOs rigorously and consistently. According to the State's Race to the Top plan, in Year 3 Rhode Island will continue to support LEAs and improve its Race to the Top program oversight and monitoring through EdStat and the CLO process. LEAs will take critical steps toward implementing the CCSS by developing CCSS-aligned units of study for use in classrooms. In addition, LEAs will fully implement new educator evaluation systems that use student growth data, differentiate educators into performance levels, and suggest professional growth supports for educators. The State will also take steps toward rewarding effective educators by developing and piloting new compensation structures. Additionally, it will place more educators certified through alternative routes in schools and will continue its efforts to transform persistently lowest-achieving (PLA) schools through interventions and support. A glossary is included. (Contains 5 footnotes.) [For "Race to the Top. Rhode Island Report. Year 1: School Year 2010-2011. [State-Specific Summary Report]," see ED529328.] Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (1533K)

Descriptors:
Academic Achievement; Academic Standards; Accountability; Achievement Gap; Administrator Effectiveness; Alignment (Education); Budgets; Career Readiness; Charter Schools; College Readiness; Core Curriculum; Data; Educational Assessment; Educational Change; Educational Improvement; Elementary Secondary Education; Federal Legislation; Formative Evaluation; Grants; Higher Education; Language Arts; Leadership Effectiveness; Literacy; Low Achievement; Mathematics Achievement; Measurement Objectives; Models; Outcomes of Education; Partnerships in Education; Poverty; Principals; Professional Development; Program Effectiveness; Program Implementation; School Districts; School Effectiveness; School Turnaround; State Government; State Standards; STEM Education; Teacher Effectiveness; Teacher Evaluation

Abstract:
This State-specific summary report serves as an assessment of Ohio's Year 2 Race to the Top implementation, highlighting successes and accomplishments, identifying challenges, and providing lessons learned from implementation from approximately September 2011 through September 2012. During Year 2, Ohio built on its Year 1 successes. In its transition to the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), the State created a high school and IHE committee to align college and career standards with colleges' and universities' entrance requirements. To improve educator data access and allow the State to track students once they exit the kindergarten through twelfth grade (K-12) system, the State worked with an external vendor to assign statewide student identifiers (SSIDs) to all high school seniors and freshmen attending State public IHEs (institutions of higher education). The State also created structures to ensure that participating local educational agencies (LEAs) receive frequent Race to the Top updates. During Year 2 Ohio faced some difficulty aligning ODE (Ohio Department of Education) and OBR (Ohio Board of Regents) efforts, as well as developing comprehensive contractor oversight processes. In addition, the State grappled with how to provide support to non-traditional persistently lowest-achieving (PLA) schools, namely community and virtual schools. Ohio continues to focus on ways to ensure sustainability of its Race to the Top reforms and high levels of LEA engagement. During Year 3, Ohio plans to assess and revise its structures to ensure quality implementation of all of its projects. As part of this work, Ohio developed an expanded statewide engagement strategy for educators and other stakeholders such as the general public and policymakers. In addition, Ohio plans to reevaluate its curriculum and assessment resources, as well as how LEA professional development plans are submitted, reviewed, and approved. Finally, in Year 3, participating LEAs will pilot or implement the Ohio Teacher Evaluation System (OTES) and the Ohio Principal Evaluation System (OPES) to support full implementation of both systems no later than SY 2013-2014. A glossary is included. (Contains 18 footnotes.) [For "Race to the Top. Ohio Report. Year 1: School Year 2010-2011. [State-Specific Summary Report]," see ED529325.] Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (1444K)

Descriptors:
Academic Achievement; Academic Standards; Accountability; Achievement Gap; Administrator Effectiveness; Alignment (Education); Budgets; Career Readiness; Charter Schools; College Readiness; Core Curriculum; Data; Educational Assessment; Educational Change; Educational Improvement; Elementary Secondary Education; Federal Legislation; Formative Evaluation; Grants; Higher Education; Language Arts; Leadership Effectiveness; Literacy; Low Achievement; Mathematics Achievement; Measurement Objectives; Models; Outcomes of Education; Partnerships in Education; Poverty; Principals; Professional Development; Program Effectiveness; Program Implementation; School Districts; School Effectiveness; School Turnaround; State Government; State Standards; STEM Education; Teacher Effectiveness; Teacher Evaluation

Abstract:
This State-specific summary report serves as an assessment of North Carolina's second year of Race to the Top implementation. The report highlights successes and accomplishments, identifies challenges, and provides lessons learned from implementation from approximately September 2011 through September 2012. In Year 2, North Carolina continued the progress it made in Year 1 in all areas of its comprehensive reform plan and reached several implementation milestones. North Carolina made progress in implementing a qualifying evaluation system for teachers and principals by modifying its existing statewide evaluation system, the North Carolina Educator Evaluation System (NCEES). The State also continued to prepare its educators to fully implement the updated North Carolina Standard Course of Study in SY 2012-2013 by providing professional development and disseminating curricular materials. Delays impacted several of the State's Race to the Top initiatives. The Instructional Improvement System (IIS) and Virtual Blended STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) Courses projects were delayed in order to refine project plans and requirements and as a result of lengthy procurement processes; these projects now have condensed implementation timeframes. The State's extensive Year 2 preparations laid the groundwork for full implementation of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and NCEES in Year 3. The State's comprehensive professional development offerings, including more than 90 regional face-to-face sessions and online resources, will support educators as they implement these and other key initiatives. North Carolina will also continue to support teacher and leader pipelines through its Regional Leadership Academies, Distinguished Leadership in Practice program, Teach For America partnership, and the North Carolina Teacher Corps. North Carolina will continue to build readiness in the field for and begin implementing components of its two major technology initiatives, the Cloud and Home Base. A glossary is included. (Contains 9 footnotes.) [For "Race to the Top. North Carolina. Year 1: School Year 2010-2011. [State-Specific Summary Report]," see ED529322.] Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (1373K)