Your search found 129473 results.

Descriptors:
Data; Decision Making; Educational Policy; Educational Practices; State Departments of Education; Educational Finance; Politics of Education; Human Resources; Information Utilization; Local Issues; State Programs

Abstract:
This report documents how four state education agencies are supporting local data-driven decisionmaking through their policies, practices, and programs for creating data systems, improving data access and use, and building district and school capacity to use data. Specifically, this report, responding to District of Columbia Office of State Superintendent of Education and Pennsylvania Department of Education requests, describes how Arkansas, Florida, Texas, and Virginia are supporting local data-driven decisionmaking. Two questions guide this study: (1) What policies or practices in Arkansas, Florida, Texas, and Virginia support local use of data for education purposes; and (2) How do Arkansas, Florida, Texas, and Virginia support local use of data in selected state education agency-administered programs? This study found that the four states have implemented a range of policies and practices in all three categories of the study's analytical framework: (1) Creating, expanding, and linking data systems. The four states have created and built state repositories and are expanding the types of data collected and warehoused to better equip districts and schools to rigorously assess whether students, schools, and districts are meeting state college readiness requirements and career readiness expectations. (2) Ensuring data access and use. The four states have implemented policies and practices to help local educators and administrators access, understand, and use data effectively. In doing so, they are making data and analyses timely, readily available, and easy to understand for parents, educators, and policymakers. (3) Building district and school capacity to use data. The four states have focused on strengthening local human resource capability, mainly through partnerships and professional development. By building local capacity to access and analyze data stored in state longitudinal data systems, the states intend to help local policymakers and practitioners use data inform key policy questions on performance and improvement. In addition to state policies, the study also identified five state programs supporting district and school use of data (one in Florida, two in Texas, and two in Virginia). Appended are: (1) Summaries of studies with strong findings on state education agency support for local data-driven decisionmaking; and (2) Study methods. (Contains 3 boxes, 2 figures, 3 tables, and 7 notes.) [For the Summary Report, see ED526135] 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 (521K)

Descriptors:
Program Effectiveness; Intervention; Reading Difficulties; Grade 5; Grade 6; Evaluation Research; Middle Schools; Regression (Statistics); Research Design; Outcomes of Education; Educational Practices; School Districts; State Departments of Education; Reading Tests; High Stakes Tests; Measurement; Data; Decision Making

Abstract:
The primary aim of the Middle School Intervention Project (MSIP) is to evaluate the impact of a multi-component intervention for struggling adolescent readers on reading outcomes. The intervention consists of: (1) targeted, Tier 2 reading and (2) school engagement interventions, and (3) data-based-decision-making (DBDM) teams to review and act on student data. A critical concept in MSIP is that 6th grade students are screened into the targeted, Tier 2 intervention based on 5th grade reading scores. This screening function allows for a regression discontinuity design (RDD). Use of the RDD allows educators to evaluate existing practices in schools, rather than randomly assign half of the schools to receive a prescribed intervention, as in a traditional RCT. Thus, this study is also a test of RDD as a feasible means for conducting rigorous evaluation research with SEAs and LEAs. The purpose of this presentation is to demonstrate the use of RDD to evaluate the impact of a multi-component intervention for struggling readers in middle school. The authors examine the impact of the intervention on the Oregon Assessment of Skills and Knowledge (OAKS), a high-stakes, statewide reading assessment. (Contains 1 table.) 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 (181K)

Descriptors:
Academic Achievement; Evidence; Decision Making; Principals; Hypothesis Testing; School Districts; Urban Schools; Data Analysis; Instructional Improvement; Use Studies; Evaluation Utilization; Information Utilization; Research Utilization; Management Information Systems; Educational Practices; Access to Information; School Surveys; Case Studies; Achievement Tests; Schematic Studies; Administrator Attitudes; Teacher Attitudes; Delivery Systems; Administrator Characteristics; Teacher Characteristics; Performance Factors; Data

Abstract:
In recent years, interest has spiked in data-driven decision making in education--that is, using various types of student data to inform decisions in schools and classrooms. In October 2008, the Council of the Great City Schools and American Institutes for Research (AIR) launched a project funded by The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation that focused on understanding the use of data as a lever for instructional improvement. The study was conducted in four urban districts located in geographically distinct areas. The project had two interrelated objectives: (1) to document and understand current data-use practices across urban school districts in terms of the use and availability of data--in particular, the administration and use of interim assessments; and (2) to generate empirical evidence regarding the relationships between student achievement and data-use practices at the school and classroom levels. To address the first objective, the authors administered surveys to district academic/curriculum coordinators and research directors to obtain a general overview of the state of current practices in using data to inform school- and classroom-level decision making across urban school districts. Following the surveys, the authors conducted a series of case studies of four urban districts, allowing for a more in-depth look at district data use. This report focuses on the second objective: examining the empirical relationships between teacher and principal use of student interim assessment data and achievement on end-of-year accountability tests. In this report, the authors expand on the existing body of literature on the use of interim assessments by examining the extent to which data-use practices (including perceptions about using data) are related to student achievement. The report is organized in three sections. First, the authors review the literature on using data from interim assessments and put forth a theory of action that undergirds their investigation. The theory of action identifies a set of key dimensions of data use and hypothesizes that supporting conditions in states, school districts, and schools can facilitate the effective classroom-level use of data to respond to students' instructional needs. Second, they report results of an empirical test of this theory of action. The analyses examined the relationship between teachers' and schools' use of interim assessment data and improvements in student achievement in reading and mathematics at grades 4, 5, 7, and 8. They focused on classroom-level data-use practices as reported by teachers, and school-level data-use practices and perceptions as reported by principals. The analyses include more than 1,500 teachers and 150 school principals and student achievement data from over 60,000 students across four urban districts collected during the 2009-10 school year. In the third and final section of this report, they interpret the study findings and provide recommendations and conclusions. Appended are: (1) District and State Context; (2) Measures and Data-Use Survey Items; (3) Information on Samples; and (4) Estimation Methods and Hypothesis Testing. (Contains 77 tables, 9 exhibits and 16 footnotes.) [For "Charting Success: Data Use and Student Achievement in Urban Schools. Executive Summary," see ED536740.] 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 (24300K)

Descriptors:
Higher Education; Enrollment Management; Educational Change; Strategic Planning; Best Practices; Educational Practices; Sustainability; Change Strategies; Barriers; Institutional Characteristics; Organizational Change; Cultural Differences; Conflict Resolution; Culture Conflict; Student Financial Aid; Enrollment Influences; Enrollment Projections; Decision Making; Information Utilization; Success; School Holding Power; Textbook Content; Performance Factors; Organizational Effectiveness; Staff Development; Leadership Effectiveness; Data; Benchmarking; Organizational Climate; Organizational Culture

Abstract:
As external forces demand change in the delivery of postsecondary education and institutions seek to take advantage of new opportunities, the potential for achieving higher levels of student and institutional success is vast. New technologies, communication tools, data use, and organizational constructs present key factors in improving the delivery of higher education. "Strategic Enrollment Management: Transforming Higher Education" brings practitioners up to the present and into new territory by addressing the latest SEM emphases. This book provides a roadmap for the required paradigm shift, building on the solid foundation of prior SEM practice and offering insights to new approaches that will lead to sustainable SEM efforts into the future. 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:
Academic Achievement; Decision Making; Urban Schools; Instructional Improvement; Data; Evaluation Utilization; Information Utilization; Research Utilization; Summative Evaluation; Formative Evaluation; Educational Practices; Use Studies; Management Information Systems; Schematic Studies; Barriers; Educational Resources; School Policy; Administrator Attitudes; Teacher Attitudes; Evidence; Inferences

Abstract:
In recent years, interest has spiked in data-driven decision making in education--that is, using various types of student data to inform decisions in schools and classrooms. In October 2008, the Council of the Great City Schools and American Institutes for Research (AIR) launched a project funded by The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation that focused on understanding the use of data as a lever for instructional improvement. This study focused specifically on interim (also known as benchmark) assessments that are often adopted at the district level. Interim assessments are typically characterized as falling between regular (often daily) formative assessments and annual summative assessments. The goals of this project were to (1) document and understand current interim assessment data-use practices in urban school districts and (2) to test the links between data-use practices and perceptions and student achievement. This brief is a summary of the report that focused on the second objective: examining the empirical relationships between teacher- and school-level data use and student achievement in mathematics and reading. By examining the extent to which certain data use practices are related to student achievement, the study expands on the existing body of literature on the use of interim assessments to drive instructional improvement. (Contains 1 exhibit and 3 footnotes.) [For the full report, "Charting Success: Data Use and Student Achievement in Urban Schools," see ED536748.] 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 (710K)

Descriptors:
Educational Change; National Curriculum; Global Approach; Educational Trends; Trend Analysis; Change Strategies; Educational Policy; Politics of Education; Educational Improvement; Government Role; Political Attitudes; Federal Legislation; Federal Regulation; Competition; Local Issues; Relevance (Education); Educational Needs; Educational Methods; Educational Practices; Educational Development; Educational Strategies; Educational Principles

Abstract:
America is on the precipice of ruining its foundation for success. The movement toward a centralized education system through federal mandates and common curriculum and testing is threatening the very system that has contributed to America's success and that holds the potential for its future success: that is a decentralized, diverse, largely locally controlled education system. The system, which has evolved organically to meet the needs of the nation, is now called "outdated" in the age of globalization and viewed as inadequate to meet the challenges of global competition. Its merits are charged with holding back America's global progress. Specifically, diversity is equated with incoherence and inequality; local citizen control is now considered parochial; and decentralization is portrayed as the height of inefficiency. To become globally competitive, the current batch of reformers argue, America needs to abandon this tradition. In its place should be a common national curriculum, enforced with national assessment. Within this centralized education model are centrally mandated strategies, such as teacher evaluation and income based on standardized test scores, test-based incentives and accountability for schools and school leaders, and longer school days and extended school years for all students. To build a better education system, America must build on what it has--differentiation, uniqueness, and diversity. 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; Educational Policy; Evidence; Information Systems; Educational Resources; Models; Data; Information Utilization; Data Analysis; Educational Research; Teacher Evaluation; Measurement Techniques; Evaluation Methods

Abstract:
For better or worse, many educational decisions that were once handled on a personal level by teachers or administrators now increasingly rely upon data and information. To be successful in this era, educators need to understand this broad sociotechnical revolution and how it is realigning traditional roles and responsibilities. In this book, the author draws on his unique background in learning sciences, education policy, and information systems to provide valuable insights for both policy and practice. The text discusses many current topics including value-added modeling for teacher evaluation, big data and analytics, longitudinal data systems, open educational resources, blended and personalized learning models, and new designs for teaching. This comprehensive book: (1) Examines the social and historical context of the educational data movement as it unfolds across educational levels; (2) Synthesizes different research traditions from inside and outside of education; (3) Assesses the successes, challenges, and potential of data analytics; (4) Helps educators and innovators design technology-rich solutions for greater student success; and (5) Discusses the catalytic role that foundations have played in making education a more informational and evidence-based practice. 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:
Expertise; Educational Finance; State Surveys; Educational Change; State Departments of Education; State Agencies; Educational Policy; Change Agents; Financial Support; State Federal Aid; Elementary Secondary Education; Operating Expenses; Human Resources; Program Budgeting; Institutional Survival

Abstract:
Cuts in state funding for elementary and secondary education in recent years have taken a toll in many vital areas, including teaching jobs and student services. State budget cuts have also affected a less visible target--state education agencies (SEAs), which are responsible for supervising elementary and secondary education in each state and which play a crucial role in advancing education reform. Many SEAs are being asked to do more with less. While the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) provided much-needed economic stimulus money to save or create teaching jobs and continue momentum on education reform, it also placed new demands on SEAs at a time when their own operating budgets were often shrinking. Now that the stimulus funds are coming to an end, SEAs must still follow through on a series of education reform-related assurances in their ARRA applications. What is the status of SEAs' operating budgets, staffing, and expertise in the wake of ARRA? And do SEAs have the capacity to support key education reforms? This report by the Center on Education Policy (CEP) seeks to answer these questions with data from a survey of state deputy superintendents of education or their designees conducted in October through December of 2011. Thirty-seven states and the District of Columbia, which is counted as a state in the tallies in this report, responded. The 2011 survey was the second CEP survey on these topics, including state capacity. Findings from the first survey, conducted in fall 2010, are described in the 2011 report, "More to Do But Less Capacity to Do It: States' Progress in Implementing the Recovery Act Education Reforms" (CEP, 2011a). In general, that report concluded that as a result of shrinking or stagnant operating budgets for SEAs, states could have insufficient capacity in 2011 to fully and effectively implement a range of activities critical to the ARRA reform agenda. This current report focuses specifically on state funding for SEA "operations," as opposed to general state funding for public elementary and secondary education, which is discussed in a companion CEP report (2012b). In addition, this report deals only with SEA operational funding from "state" sources. This analysis of state funding for SEA operations revealed several key findings: (1) Although the state funding outlook for SEA operations appears slightly better in school year 2012-13 than in school year 2011-12, very few states expect increases in their SEA funding for 2012-13; (2) Many states are looking at two consecutive years of decreases in state funds for SEA operations; (3) State cuts in SEA operating budgets projected for school year 2012-13 tend to be somewhat smaller than those made in school year 2011-12; (4) Most of the 26 survey states that cut their SEA operating budgets for school year 2011-12 are compensating by reducing SEA staffing costs in various ways; fewer states are cutting services to school districts; (5) States appear to be making an effort to maintain, and in some cases increase, SEA staff assigned to carry out key education reforms; and (6) More states reported having adequate SEA expertise to carry out key reforms than had adequate staffing levels or fiscal resources for these activities. Study methods for reports based on CEP's Fall 2011 State Survey are appended. (Contains 1 figure and 6 tables.) [For related report, "More to Do, But Less Capacity to Do It: States' Progress in Implementing the Recovery Act Education Reforms," see ED516577.] 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 (511K)

Descriptors:
Foreign Countries; Economic Climate; Human Resources; Youth Employment; Global Approach; Social Structure; Local Issues; Political Attitudes; Economic Factors; Elementary Education; Program Development; Educational Environment; Educational Development; Educational Policy; Policy Analysis; Policy Formation; Access to Education; Educational Finance; Fees; Student Costs

Abstract:
Using a global-local dialectic approach, this paper traces the rise of the basic education programme in the 1980s and 1990s in Botswana and its subsequent attenuation in the 2000s. Amongst the local forces that led to the rise of BEP were Botswana's political project of nation-building; the country's dire human resources situation in the decades following Independence in 1966; and its propitious economic climate in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Global forces included the global circulation of the World Bank's educational discourse on the primacy of primary education as a public "investment" option and Botswana's desire to be a member of the influential transnational social structure. BEP's attenuation can similarly be traced back to both local and global forces. Local forces included the growth of youth unemployment, and a sluggish economy. Global forces included the globalization of neo-liberalism which called for cost-sharing/recovery measures, and, ironically, Botswana's "promotion" to a "middle income status" country. While conceptually the attenuation represents a case of policy reversal and in some ways a sense of "loss", empirically, the attenuation has not been of material consequence to access to "basic" education. This is attributed to the ambiguous position (best captured by the term "doublethink") the Botswana government has adopted in relation to the issue of school fees. 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:
Stakeholders; Competition; Educational Change; Best Practices; Politics of Education; School Districts; Public Agencies; Information Security; Federal Legislation; Federal Programs; Grants; Federal Aid; Selection Criteria; Federal Regulation; Feedback (Response); Data; Decision Making; Educational Policy; Policy Analysis; Program Implementation; Alignment (Education); State Policy; Evaluation Methods; Educational Assessment; Measurement; Postsecondary Education; Evaluation Criteria; College Readiness; Career Readiness; Academic Achievement

Abstract:
The Data Quality Campaign (DQC) submits these comments in response to the US Department of Education's (ED) draft requirements, priorities, selection criteria, and definitions for the Race to the Top District (RTT-D) competition. DQC applauds ED for including the following components of the proposal: (1) Data is acknowledged throughout the proposal as a critical tool for students, parents, and educators to use to inform student-centric teaching and learning; (2) Data is a means to an end, and too often federal policies ignore the data implications or demands of specific strategies. The proposed criteria appear to acknowledge the data implications of its requirements by requiring districts to put in place certain data systems capacities; (3) Data cannot be leveraged to inform decisionmaking if stakeholders lack access to timely, actionable information and the training to use it effectively. The proposed language calls for providing leadership teams, educator teams, parents, and students with data, acknowledging that all of these stakeholders need training and support to ensure they have the data literacy skills to understand and use available tools and resources; (4) Local education agencies (LEAs) and schools need support implementing best practices to comply with federal and state privacy and security policies and protect student information. The RTT-D language acknowledges that critical need by requiring applicants to work with ED to put in place deliberate implementation plans that address those issues; and (5) Culture change is the most difficult part of any continuous improvement process. The RTT-D language acknowledges that putting in place tools is not the same thing as creating a culture that embraces the effective and appropriate use of data to inform decisionmaking. As such, it asks applicants to indicate how the implementation plan will translate into meaningful reform and support districtwide change. It will be difficult for grantees to demonstrate and the federal government to monitor these kinds of outcomes. (Contains 1 footnote.) 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 (192K)