Your search found 418250 results.

Descriptors:
Learner Engagement; Evidence; Intervention; Elementary Secondary Education; Models; Educational Objectives; Educational Attainment; Time Factors (Learning); Program Effectiveness; Educational Policy; Policy Analysis; Outcomes of Education; Educational Improvement; Literature Reviews; After School Programs; Kindergarten; Program Evaluation; Extended School Day; Extended School Year; After School Education; Achievement Gap; Synthesis; Educational Research; Community Programs; Statistical Analysis; Classification; Educational History; Charter Schools; Research Needs

Abstract:
The educational achievement and attainment of young people in the United States has been a long-standing issue of concern. While analyses of long-term trend data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) show that students in the United States have made gains in reading and mathematics over the past few decades, a sizeable proportion of students in this country fail to demonstrate mastery of basic reading and writing skills, lack knowledge about U.S. history or geography, and perform at below-basic levels in mathematics and the sciences. This report synthesizes what is known about the effectiveness of school and program interventions that aim to address deficiencies and inequities in academic achievement and educational attainment by expanding learning opportunities for students both inside and outside of school. In Chapter 1, the authors introduce and frame the topic by providing background on the educational system in the United States and the need for improving the system to better support optimal achievement and attainment outcomes. The introduction also outlines the current policy context, describes the methodology for conducting the literature review, and provides information on the different types of out-of-school time programs. In Chapter 2, they examine the available literature on models in which districts or schools either expand the length of the day that young people must be in school or expand the number of days in the school year. This chapter is divided into two sections: the first looks at the evidence on extended school-day (ESD) program models; the second focuses on findings from extended school-year (ESY) program models. Because this review aims to cover the effects of extended learning time programs serving students in grades K-12, both sections include information on kindergarten programs. Most of the studies of ESD and ESY models focus solely on academic achievement outcomes, so that will be the focus of this review. In Chapter 3, they summarize the effects of social intervention programs that expand learning opportunities outside of the school day by providing at least one academic component as a part of their regular program offerings. In many cases, these programs are designed to complement learning that happens in school. They refer to these programs as expanded learning opportunities or ELO programs. Because ELO programs take place in community and school settings during nonschool hours, these programs are also commonly referred to as out-of-school time (OST) programs. Because random assignment evaluations were available on ELO programs, but not for ESD and ESY program models, Chapter 3 is structured differently than Chapter 2 and focuses on "what works" based on findings from these rigorous evaluations. In addition, the ELO evaluations tended to include information on a wider range of educational outcomes beyond academic achievement; therefore, their review of the research literature on ELO programs in Chapter 3 includes a broader review of educational outcomes, such as information on student engagement and educational attainment. In Chapter 4, they offer a set of conclusions and recommendations based on what they learned from their investigations. (Contains 2 figures, 2 tables, 3 footnotes and 14 endnotes.) 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:
Welfare Recipients; Postsecondary Education; Low Income Groups; Parents; Adult Education; Barriers; Enrollment; Graduation; Academic Persistence; Community Colleges; Vocational Education; Education Work Relationship; Dropout Prevention; Program Effectiveness; Outcomes of Education; Educational Policy; Educational Research

Abstract:
Increasing education among low-income parents is a vital component of policies to improve families' economic status. Educational attainment matters: between 1979 and 2005, wages for those with college and advanced degrees rose by 22 and 28 percent, respectively, while wages for high school graduates remained stagnant and wages for high school dropouts fell by 16 percent. Moreover, the strong association between postsecondary education and higher earnings does not necessarily mean that facilitating access to higher education among low-income adults will lead to earnings gains, particularly considering that many lack recent or successful school experiences. This brief draws on rigorous studies to highlight what is known about efforts to encourage participation in and completion of postsecondary education among recipients of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) cash assistance and other low-income populations. In this brief postsecondary (or higher) education is defined as academic and vocational/occupational postsecondary programs but not basic education (such as GED preparation classes or high school diploma programs). The brief explores the programs that have been tried, their success in increasing engagement and completion, and the extent to which increases improved economic well-being. (Contains 1 table and 28 notes.) 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 (282K)

Descriptors:
Track System (Education); Foreign Countries; Educational Change; Vocational Education; Program Effectiveness; Secondary Schools; Academic Education; Course Content; Eligibility; College Bound Students; Educational Policy; Enrollment Trends; Outcomes of Education; Salaries; Educational History

Abstract:
By exploiting an extensive pilot scheme that preceded an educational reform, this paper evaluates the effects of introducing a more comprehensive upper secondary school system in Sweden. The reform reduced the differences between academic and vocational tracks through prolonging and increasing the academic content of the latter. As a result, all vocational students became eligible for university studies. The results suggest that the policy change increased the amount of upper secondary schooling obtained among vocational students, but did not affect enrollment in university studies or students' earnings later in life. (Contains 9 tables, 3 figures and 27 footnotes.) 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 |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

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:
The State-specific summary report serves as an assessment of Massachusetts' 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, Massachusetts continued to implement strong systems to track progress of projects, assess risk, and provide support of project implementation as needed. The State fully implemented project management structures through the Delivery approach, which regularly assesses project progress and identifies potential problems based on predetermined goals and objectives. The Delivery process allows for a candid assessment of project risks and timely application of action plans for projects that may be getting off track. The State demonstrated a strong understanding of its progress and the areas that required additional support. Additionally, the State proactively collaborated with key stakeholders throughout the development of major components of its Race to the Top reform efforts, which resulted in greater buy-in from educators during implementation. While Massachusetts has put concerted time and resources into efforts to implement the schools interoperability framework (SIF) in order to improve the data collection process, there continued to be significant delays in this project. The State fell short of meeting its performance measure for this project for the first two years of the grant. In SY 2011-2012, the State reported that 100 percent of local educational agencies (LEAs) implemented the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), which are incorporated into the Massachusetts Curriculum Framework for English Language Arts and the Massachusetts Curriculum Framework for Mathematics. LEAs faced challenges finalizing local collective bargaining agreements in time to prepare for implementation of educator evaluation systems in SY 2012-2013. The State reported in October 2012 that 88 of the 236 participating LEAs had ESE-approved evaluation system plans that align with the State's regulations. Massachusetts plans to fully implement the 2011 Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks, which incorporate the CCSS, in Year 3. In addition, all Race to the Top participating LEAs will implement new educator evaluation systems. The State will continue to develop data systems and curricular materials that support these initiatives and will provide further guidance to LEAs as they roll out their new curricula and evaluations. A glossary is included. (Contains 11 footnotes.) [For "Race to the Top. Massachusetts Report. Year 1: School Year 2010-2011. [State-Specific Summary Report]," see ED529318. 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 (1467K)

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 Georgia'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, Georgia had a range of accomplishments across Race to the Top education reform areas. For example, Georgia completed two additional rounds of the Innovation Fund competitive grant program, awarding a total of 24 grants in Years 1 and 2. The State remains optimistic about the initiative and views the Innovation Fund as a way to stimulate new thinking about competitive grant funds for innovative education in Georgia. The Georgia Department of Education (GaDOE) also provided all local educational agencies (LEAs) with a variety of resources (e.g., webinars, newsletters, and curriculum frameworks), professional development, and face-to-face support from English language arts (ELA) and mathematics specialists that will help them implement the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), referred to as the Common Core Georgia Performance Standards (CCGPS) in Georgia, in school year (SY) 2012-2013. Additionally, in moving forward with new and high-quality assessments, the State is developing a formative assessment toolkit. To ensure reliability, Georgia has field tested 800 assessment items using a representative sample of schools. Georgia experienced significant challenges related to implementation of its educator evaluation system in Year 2 of its Race to the Top grant. The Department is concerned about the overall strategic planning, evaluation, and project management for that system, which include decisions regarding the quality of the tools and measures used during the educator evaluation pilot and the scalability of the supports the State offered to participating LEAs. During Year 3, Georgia plans to develop rigorous routines and processes to better manage its Race to the Top projects and to more effectively monitor and assess participating LEAs' progress and quality of implementation. The State will also work with a consulting firm to enhance its communications plan to better articulate the various components of its Race to the Top initiative and how these components align. A glossary is included. (Contains 9 footnotes.) [For "Race to the Top. Georgia Report. Year 1: School Year 2010-2011. [State-Specific Summary Report]," see ED529314.] 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 (1493K)

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 the District of Columbia'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. Despite the delays, the Office of the State Superintendent of Education (OSSE) has made progress in implementation since Year 1. OSSE continues to leverage Race to the Top-specific task forces to accomplish District-wide work. This includes the development of competitive subgrants and corresponding Requests for Applications (RFAs), and the review of teacher and leader evaluation plans. OSSE has a new Race to the Top Director since January 2012, which has provided stability in leadership across Race to the Top projects. OSSE experienced several procurement delays that directly affected Race to the Top initiatives, including the Enterprise Grants Management System, the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) resource website, statewide longitudinal data system (SLDS), Expanded Growth Measures, and Teacher Preparation Program Scorecard projects. In Year 3, the District plans for its Race to the Top team to play a major role in a tiered system of support for persistently lowest-achieving (PLA) schools, which is aligned with the District's approved Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) flexibility request. OSSE will continue to provide professional development opportunities for educators on implementing the CCSS. It also plans to promote its CCSS resource website and release the Standards Entry Points for Differentiated Learning, a consortium-developed manual for special education teachers. A glossary is included. (Contains 7 footnotes.) [For "Race to the Top. District of Columbia Report. Year 1: School Year 2010-2011. [State-Specific Summary Report]," see ED529308.] 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 (1619K)

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 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)