Your search found 1841 results.

Descriptors:
Decision Making; Schools of Education; Data; Teacher Education Curriculum; Teacher Education Programs; Information Literacy; Information Skills; Skill Analysis; Skill Development; Management Information Systems; Data Analysis; Data Collection; Data Interpretation; Educational Needs; Curriculum Implementation; Knowledge Base for Teaching; Policy Analysis; Systems Approach; Change Strategies; Educational Change

Abstract:
Data-driven decision making has become increasingly important in education. Policymakers require educators to use data to inform practice. Although the policy emphasis is growing, what has not increased is attention to building human capacity around data use. Educators need to gain data literacy skills to inform practice. Although some professional development opportunities exist for current educators, fewer formal courses and opportunities for data literacy development in schools of education have been developed and implemented. This article explores issues around the growing need for data-driven decision making in programs in schools of education. The issues are complex and the actors needed to bring about change are multiple. A systems perspective to explore course and programmatic implementation is presented. 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:
Individual Differences; Reading Fluency; Curriculum Based Assessment; Correlation; Scores; Benchmarking; Data; Models; Statistical Analysis; Reading; Measurement; Factor Analysis; Intervals

Abstract:
The purpose of this article is to demonstrate ways to model nonlinear growth using three testing occasions. We demonstrate our growth models in the context of curriculum-based measurement using the fall, winter, and spring passage reading fluency benchmark assessments. We present a brief technical overview that includes the limitations of a growth model with three time points, and how nonlinear growth can be modeled and the associated limitations. We present results for a piecewise growth mixture modeling approach to model nonlinear growth for 1 to 3 classes, as well as to further explain individual differences and to capture heterogeneity of growth patterns. We discuss our interpretation of these results, as well as the implications of different methods for modeling nonlinear growth with three occasions. (Contains 3 tables, 3 figures, and 2 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:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Standard Setting (Scoring); Cutting Scores; Validity; Reliability; Medicine; Licensing Examinations (Professions); Performance; Data; Correlation; Judges

Abstract:
This study investigated the extent to which the performance data format impacted data use in Angoff standard setting exercises. Judges from two standard settings (a total of five panels) were randomly assigned to one of two groups. The full-data group received two types of data: (1) the proportion of examinees selecting each option and (2) plots showing the proportion of examinees selecting the correct answer by deciles defined by total test score. The options-only group received only the option data. Results indicated that judgments in the full-data group were in substantially closer alignment with the empirical data than those in the options-only group. This suggests that either the decile data alone or the combination of both pieces of data leads to a greater reliance on the data. The results are discussed from the perspective of the validity/credibility of the resulting cut scores. (Contains 6 figures and 6 tables.) 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:
Disabilities; Testing Accommodations; Special Education Teachers; Middle School Teachers; Validity; Decision Making; Data; Individualized Education Programs; Measures (Individuals); Middle School Students; Educational Legislation; Federal Legislation; Interviews

Abstract:
Twenty middle school special education teachers from five states were interviewed in order to gain insight into their understanding of accommodation practices. Interview questions solicited information about teachers' understanding of test accommodations, the decision-making process they employed when choosing accommodations, and their reasons for assignment of specific accommodations to individual students. Interviews revealed a general lack of knowledge about the theoretical and empirical basis for making accommodation assignment decisions. Drawing on information gained from these interviews as well as previous research on teachers' and test accommodations, a list of professional development considerations is shared. Considerations are intended to provide a partial solution toward reducing the gap between research and practice in the appropriate assignment of test accommodations. (Contains 2 tables.) 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:
Educational Change; Public Education; Private Schools; Educational Practices; Elementary Secondary Education; Charter Schools; Educational Quality; Equal Education; Data; Access to Information; Political Attitudes; Politics of Education

Abstract:
Like many parents and educators, the author is concerned about both quality and equity in the school systems and schools, public and private. He is equally frustrated at the seemingly zealous focus on producing more and more charter schools when America have had: (1) limited success in that arena; and (2) limited data on their success. That stated, he finds value in the charter experiment. He thinks it is helpful to find out-of-the-box ideas of educational reform. However, he is challenged when he senses a need to grow more and more charters when data show that they perform largely lesser than other public schools. They can be dressed up, but if they look and feel like the lowest-performing schools, guess what? They'll be low performing, too. The author always finds it interesting that a bunch of community and business people can come in and think they build a better school than the bunch with education credentials. Sometimes they can. Most of the time they fail miserably because they are in way over their pay grade with respect to educational pedagogy. Of course, the real problem is that there are too many underperforming, out-moded, and under-talented schools. These are the bad schools, and the word bad is fitting. Over 55 million students are taught in K-12 public and private schools in the United States annually. The sheer scope of this issue is hard to fathom. Nevertheless, it is a critical issue that must be contended with in America, and the charter discussion is an important piece of that discussion. In this article, the author makes a few targeted points about Dr. Maranto's review of his edited book, "Finding Superman: Debating the Future of Public Education in America" (2012). (Contains 2 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:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Principals; Professional Development; Data; Teaching Methods; Learning Processes; Video Technology; Educational Improvement; Workshops; Foreign Countries

Abstract:
International research documents a variety of approaches for fostering the professional development of principals. These studies mainly draw upon survey and interview data. Less attention has been paid to observing professional development processes. This article aims to examine how professional learning is played out empirically in the interactions among members of a school improvement team in a Norwegian context by paying special attention to school data as the departure for professional development of principals. Cultural Historical Activity Theory frames the analysis. The findings suggest that video clips of teaching practices stimulate engagement among team members and, hence, mediate professional learning processes beyond the situations presented in the workshops. These video clips triggered analyses of how to understand and improve teaching practices. In addition, external facilitation seemed crucial for anchoring the analysis theoretically, and for highlighting implications for leadership in the workshops. 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:
Tenure; College Faculty; College Administration; Administrators; Data; Educational Finance; Cost Effectiveness; Higher Education

Abstract:
For years, faculty members have pointed to the sluggish growth in the number of tenured professors and complained that university payrolls are filled with too many administrators. This, they maintain, adds unnecessary costs and takes the focus away from teaching and learning. But whether such "administrative bloat" is really occurring and how much it matters on campuses are complex questions to answer. The proportion of administrative and other nonfaculty employees has grown, but the reality of "administrative bloat" depends on the data. 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:
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)