Your search found 17569 results.

Descriptors:
Equal Education; Elementary Education; Foreign Countries; Ideology; Social Status; Educational Policy; Governance; Educational Assessment

Abstract:
Meritocracy functions in Singapore as the key principle of governance and educational distribution. However, the concept of meritocracy itself contains a number of inherent contradictions, most evidently witnessed in the tension between its egalitarian and elitist strands. This tension is documented in the recommendations of Singapore's recent primary education review, already accepted by the Ministry of Education and to be implemented in the coming years. This article considers these recommendations against the backdrop of a tentative movement towards egalitarianism in educational distribution. Specifically, it provides a preliminary and provisional assessment of how far they would go towards providing for greater educational equity and, therefore, in recovering the ideology of meritocracy in the nation-state. (Contains 10 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:
Reading Tests; Educational Assessment; Measurement; Longitudinal Studies; English Language Learners; Socioeconomic Status; Special Education; Reading Achievement; Achievement Gap; Disadvantaged; Elementary School Students; Middle School Students; High School Students; Individual Characteristics; Institutional Characteristics; Cohort Analysis; Federal Legislation; Educational Legislation; Hierarchical Linear Modeling

Abstract:
Eliminating inequity in public education is a central goal of the No Child left Behind (NCLB) act. Controlling for 3rd-grade performance, the impact of English language learner (ELL) status, socioeconomic status (SES), and special education (SPED) status on a cohort's reading performance was investigated from elementary to high school through a multilevel framework. Results in Hawaii show that the negative impact of low SES and SPED status persists up to high school, while the disadvantage of ELL status is restricted within the elementary grades. Moreover, individual characteristics, not school characteristics, have a dominant impact on future reading performance. Among individual characteristics, early performance is a crucial factor for future academic achievement. The findings show that educational policies that use incentives and sanctions such as NCLB to close achievement gaps may not be successful. (Contains 5 tables and 3 figures.) 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:
Indigenous Populations; Cost Effectiveness; Foreign Countries; Educational Benefits; School Involvement; Economic Impact; Community Benefits; Geographic Location; Student Participation; Attendance; Education Work Relationship; Youth Opportunities; Youth Programs; Outcomes of Education; Educational Indicators; Educational Assessment; Predictor Variables; Predictive Measurement; Predictive Validity; Educational Attitudes

Abstract:
In this paper, the 2001 Australian Census is used to estimate predicted net benefits of education at a small geographic level. These are then linked to youth in the areas to test the associations with high school participation. This is done separately for Indigenous youth, a population sub-group with historically low levels of education participation. The results confirm that, in general, localised predicted benefits of education do have a significant association with participation. For the Indigenous population, however, there is no significant association between the predicted income benefits of education and participation and only a weak association with the employment benefits. (Contains 5 tables and 4 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:
Academic Standards; Genetics; Heuristics; Models; Expertise; Curriculum Development; Educational Assessment; Theory Practice Relationship; Alignment (Education); Longitudinal Studies; Correlation; Learning Processes; Interviews

Abstract:
Learning progressions (LPs) are theoretical models of how learners develop expertise in a domain over extended periods of time. Recent policy reports have touted LPs as a promising approach to aligning standards, curriculum, and assessment. However, the scholarship on LPs is relatively sparse, and the jury is still out on the theoretical and practical value of this approach. To realize any potential of LPs researchers need to systematically refine these hypothetical models in real-world contexts. Such refinement efforts are challenging, as they require the coordination of messy empirical data with often underspecified theoretical models. Many of the current reports involving the empirical refinement and validation of LPs do not sufficiently explicate the process of how one goes about making modifications to the LP based on empirical data. In this article we present heuristics for facilitating the coordination of data and LP models. Using an illustrative example of a genetics LP and data from a 2-year longitudinal study of this LP, we demonstrate the use of these heuristics to refine the hypothesized levels of the LP. We also discuss the process we used to identify contingencies (relationships) between the constructs of this LP. We conclude with a discussion of implications of the refinement process for the alignment of curriculum, instruction, and assessment. (Contains 4 tables and 2 figures.) 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:
College Faculty; State Standards; Critical Thinking; Secondary School Teachers; Middle School Teachers; Formative Evaluation; Summative Evaluation; Educational Assessment; Learner Engagement; Higher Education; High Schools; Middle Schools

Abstract:
This practical, very effective resource helps middle and high school teachers and curriculum leaders develop the skills to design instructional tasks and assessments that engage students in higher-level critical thinking, as recommended by the Common Core State Standards. Real examples of formative and summative assessments from a variety of content areas are included and demonstrate how to successfully increase the level of critical thinking in every classroom! This book is also an excellent resource for higher education faculty to use in undergraduate and graduate courses on assessment and lesson planning. 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:
Curriculum Design; Content Analysis; Longitudinal Studies; Comparative Analysis; Educational Researchers; Educational Assessment; Instructional Effectiveness; Evidence; Educational History; Teachers; Educational Attitudes

Abstract:
Fifteen historical and contemporary curriculum designs were analyzed for elements of assessment that support student learning and inform instructional decisions. Educational researchers are purposely paying attention to the role assessment plays in a well-designed planning and teaching process. Assessment is a vital component to educational planning and teaching because it is a way to gather accurate evidence of student learning and information to inform instructional decisions. The purpose of this review was to analyze 100 years of curriculum designs to uncover elements of assessment that will support teachers in their desire to improve student learning. Throughout this research the author seeks to answer the question: Do historical and contemporary curriculum designs include elements of assessment that help teachers improve student learning? The results of the review reveal that assessment elements were addressed in all of the curricular designs analyzed, but not all elements of assessment were identified using similar terminology. Based on the analysis of this review, it is suggested that teachers not be particular about the terminology used to describe assessment elements, as all curriculum models discussed use one or more elements similar to the context of pre, formative, and summative assessments. (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 (146K) |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library

Descriptors:
Outcomes of Education; Public Schools; Federal State Relationship; English Language Learners; Low Income; Disadvantaged; Grade 4; Grade 8; National Competency Tests; Governing Boards; Educational Assessment; Reading Achievement; Science Achievement; Mathematics Achievement; Achievement Gains; Comparative Analysis; Statistical Significance; Academic Achievement

Abstract:
California, Florida, Illinois, New York, and Texas enroll close to 40 percent of the nation's public school students. The importance of these "Mega-States" goes beyond the sheer size of their population. They now serve more than half of the nation's English language learners (ELL), as well as some of the largest concentrations of children from lower-income families. As policymakers and educators look at the nation's changing demographics and explore ways to close achievement gaps, the educational progress of children in these states is of interest far beyond their state borders. That's why the National Center for Education Statistics and the National Assessment Governing Board focused this special report on educational outcomes in the five largest states. This report provides a more in-depth look into the performance of specific student groups and performance by subject, including: (1) recent assessments; (2) comparisons to the nation and among the five states; (3) highlights of gains for student groups, including those that performed higher than their peers in the nation; and (4) student performance at or above the NAEP "Proficient level." The results presented by each subject area are for public school students only. The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reports results using widely accepted statistical standards; findings are reported based on a statistical significance level set at 0.05 with appropriate adjustments for multiple comparisons. Readers should note that writing results were not included in this report because the 2011 writing framework begins a new trend line. In addition, the 2011 computer-based writing assessment was not administered at the state level. Technical Notes are included. (Contains 19 figures, 7 tables, and 2 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:

 ERIC Full Text (3890K)

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)