Your search found 2136 results.

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:
State Boards of Education; Core Curriculum; State Standards; Alignment (Education); Academic Standards; Elementary Secondary Education; Federal Aid; Federal Government; Federal State Relationship; Politics of Education

Abstract:
On June 24, 2010, the Virginia Board of Education unanimously adopted a statement expressing its continuing commitment to Virginia's Standards of Learning (SOL) and opposition to making participation in federal grant and entitlement programs contingent on word-for-word adoption of the newly developed Common Core State Standards in reading and mathematics. Prior to this action, then-Board of Education President Eleanor Saslaw released a statement regarding the board's support for the SOL over adopting the Common Core. The Standards of Learning are clear, rigorous, and understood and trusted by Virginia teachers. Whatever adjustments that might be needed to ensure alignment of the SOL with the Common Core can be made without disrupting instruction and accountability, and within the existing process through which the board exercises its constitutional authority to establish standards for the commonwealth's public schools. When the idea of Common Core Standards was first brought forward, the Nebraska State Board of Education was strongly supportive. The idea that the development of the Common Core Standards would be a voluntary, collaborative effort across the states held great promise. At the conclusion of the process, states could adopt the standards, align with them, use them as a resource or benchmark for the development of their own standards, or reject them altogether. But suddenly, this brilliantly conceived process was hijacked. Despite previous protestations by the U.S. Department of Education (USDE) that the agency would leave alone the process of Common Core Standards development, USDE suddenly announced that anyone who expected federal money had better adopt them. Yet after the USDE's announcement, many states immediately announced their adoption of the then-nonexistent Common Core Standards. The ham-handedness of the federal government immediately and irrevocably changed the process from the pursuit of excellence to the pursuit of money. Consequently, in Nebraska, the State Board of Education members separated their selves from this effort. They already were in the midst of redeveloping and increasing the rigor of their language arts standards. In the unanimous view of the board--Republicans and Democrats alike--they rejected the federal government's "top-down cram down" approach. They have been criticized for their refusal to knuckle under to the Common Core, most notably by the Fordham Foundation, for which they otherwise have great respect. But they believe there is something dangerous and disconcerting about a federally mandated one-size-fits-all approach to educational standards. Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

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

Descriptors:
Unemployment; Insurance; Income; Eligibility; Criteria; Time; Employment; Change; Federal Legislation; Federal Programs; Federal State Relationship; Educational Attainment; Low Achievement; Probability; Mathematical Models; Prediction; Public Policy

Abstract:
Unemployment Insurance (UI) is the major social insurance program that protects against lost earnings resulting from involuntary unemployment. Existing literature finds that low-earning unemployed workers experience difficulty accessing UI benefits. The most prominent policy reform designed to increase rates of monetary eligibility, and thus UI receipt, among these unemployed workers is the Alternative Base Period (ABP). In 2009 the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act sought to increase use of the ABP, making ABP adoption a necessary pre-condition for states to receive their share of the $7 billion targeted at UI programs. By June 2012, 40 states and the District of Columbia had adopted the ABP despite the absence of an evaluation of ABP efficacy using nationally representative data. This paper analyzes Current Population Survey data from 1987-2007 to assess the efficacy of the ABP in increasing UI receipt among low-educated unemployed workers. We use a natural-experiment design and logistic regression models to capture the combined behavioral and mechanical effects of the policy change. We find no association between state-level ABP adoption and individual UI receipt for all unemployed workers. However, among part-time unemployed workers with less than a high-school degree, adoption of the ABP is associated with a 3.4 percentage point increase in the probability of UI receipt. (Contains 5 tables, 1 figure and 7 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 (634K)

Descriptors:
State Departments of Education; School Turnaround; Agency Role; Educational Change; Federal State Relationship; Federal Legislation; Educational Legislation; Federal Programs; Organizational Change; Models; Performance; Educational Administration; Leadership; Change Strategies

Abstract:
This project examines how eight state education agencies engaged the charge of improving their lowest-performing schools. The states examined are among the most active and intentional in this regard. In many ways, they are at the leading edge of what could eventually become 50 different experiments in performance management. By focusing on states at the forefront of the turnaround effort, the authors hope to identify promising paths that SEAs can follow as they shift the focus of their departments away from ensuring compliance and toward managing for improved performance. This report begins by briefly discussing prior research on the role of state agencies in supporting struggling schools. It then identifies the logic of school reform that guides their processes. Importantly, all of the states examined here start from nearly the same point, a federally defined set of steps by which they are bound, and they share certain elements of change. For example, they all used data to guide their work, restructured their organizations, and embraced the principles of transparency and clarity in communicating their intentions. They established a sense of urgency to build momentum for reform, leveraged the threat of federal requirements, and relied upon strong leadership, though in differing manners and to differing degrees. Finally, the report examines the overall strategic visions that guide SEAs' efforts to improve schools. These visions represent the greatest variation in terms of how SEAs approach school improvement. Undergirding these strategies are very different theories of action and expectations about the role of local education agencies (LEAs). It is too early to identify one strategic approach that is best in all situations. Each was implemented only recently and is embedded in a particular set of circumstances. Interestingly, they all share a common implicit assumption that enough administrative, teaching, and school leadership talent--either in terms of individuals or organizations--can be developed or recruited to support the reform effort. While the overall prognosis is uncertain as to the best transformation path, it is clear that any approach relies on recruiting enough talent to drive the effort. New Jersey Department of Education Organizational Charts 2010 and 2011 are appended. (Contains 2 figures, 2 tables and 36 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 (1187K)

Descriptors:
Foreign Countries; Federal State Relationship; Educational Change; School Turnaround; Educational Improvement; Educational Policy; Accountability; Administrative Organization; Instructional Leadership; Academic Achievement; Elementary Secondary Education; Public Schools; Elementary Schools; Case Studies

Abstract:
Securing a higher level of performance in all schools in all settings has been a major priority of governments in Australia for nearly 40 years. With the first decade of the 21st century drawing to a close, a sense of urgency has grown. The Australian federal government is seeking an education revolution through an unprecedented partnership with state governments, known as "new federalism." While the term "turn-around school" has not been adopted in Australia, policymakers at all levels are consistent in their determination to turn around low-performing schools. Thus, it is timely to review what has been accomplished to date through this new federal and state partnership; to assess the potential for significant, systematic, and sustained change in the years ahead; and to suggest implications for other countries. (Contains 1 figure, 2 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:

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

Descriptors:
Public Education; Educational History; Federal Government; Government Role; Religion; Human Capital; Role of Education; Court Litigation; Civil Rights; Federal State Relationship; United States History; Values; Government School Relationship

Abstract:
The last 50 years have seen a massive increase in the federal role in public education in the United States and a marked increase in the tension between the federal government and the states with respect to control over education. This article investigates the history of education in America, particularly with respect to federal versus state power. By examining primary sources from the colonial and postcolonial periods, we can glimpse the thoughts and motivations of the United States' most influential thinkers and leaders, as they were helping build a new country. Furthermore, the decisions of the Supreme Court on education shed light on the history and role of education in our society today. Fundamentally, this article asks the question, Because the federal government plays such a large role in public education, where is education in the Constitution? (Contains 17 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:
Educational Policy; Educational Change; Time; Educational History; Centralization; Power Structure; Federal Government; State Government; Federal State Relationship; National Programs; Governance; Politics of Education; Educational Trends

Abstract:
This article examines the trend toward centralization in American education policy over the last century through a variety of lenses. The overall picture that emerges is one of a continuous tug-of-war, with national and local policymakers stumbling together toward incrementally more standardized and centralized policies. There is a center of power that increasingly wants to dictate even the minutiae of research methods but cannot immediately manage the oversight and regulation of a large, complex, piecemeal system of education. The diversity of needs, philosophies, and opportunities overwhelms this system. Local policymakers are approaching the use of a common language from different corners of the country, but they have historically been so separated that they continue to grapple with this newfound integration. The national government sees its best interest in centralization. International competition is a major driver for policies at the national level, which may be diffused to local levels as well, and rhetoric citing the efficiency of foreign education machines is productive fodder for political rallying cries. The United States, though historically one of the most decentralized education systems, finds itself slowly moving away from one end of the decentralization spectrum. Although this implies that the United States is becoming more similar to most other national education systems, it also indicates that the United States is going against the prevailing trend in contemporary education governance to decentralize institutions. 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:
Teacher Certification; Politics of Education; Unions; Teacher Supply and Demand; Federal Government; Educational Change; Educational History; Global Approach; Educational Policy; Federal State Relationship

Abstract:
Teacher certification trends in the United States since World War II paint a complicated picture of powerful interests at different levels making demands and trying to institute disparate reforms. These patterns have varied over time, often because of teacher supply and demand. The federal government initiated its involvement when education professionals' competence came under attack in the years following the launch of Sputnik. The tensions over the size and scope of state and federal control that characterize many areas of American policy are crucial in education. The current policy environment in the United States involves several seemingly contradictory components and adversarial actors. As the United States attempts to reform its education system in response to the ever-increasing demands of participation in the global economy, control of teacher preparation and certification will continue to have to respond to multiple stakeholders. 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:
Instructional Leadership; Information Retrieval; Resource Materials; Court Litigation; Research Methodology; Graduate Students; Role; Educational Policy; Educational Practices; Law Related Education; Educational Legislation; School Law; Research; Administrative Principles; Teacher Responsibility; Higher Education; Theory Practice Relationship; Competence; Federal State Relationship

Abstract:
Legal research methodology is not included in the cluster of research and design courses offered to undergraduate and graduate students in education by traditional departments of research and foundations, so it becomes the responsibility of education law faculty to instruct students in legal methodology. This narrow corridor of opportunity for learning how to conduct legal research is sometimes and unnecessarily disconcerting to students because they fear this line of inquiry is too obscure. Our purpose here is three-fold: (a) to assert the critical role legal research plays in education policy and practice and (b) to explain the general principles and applications of traditional legal research to practitioners, graduate students, and education researchers who are unfamiliar with it, and (c) to describe some examples that illustrate the usefulness of legal research to practitioners and graduate students in educational leadership. (Contains 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 (223K) |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library

Descriptors:
Federal Legislation; Federal Programs; Educational Improvement; Accountability; Educational Indicators; Politics of Education; At Risk Students; Special Education; English (Second Language); English Language Learners; Corporations; Business; Federal State Relationship; Compliance (Legal); Feedback (Response); Evaluation Methods; States Powers

Abstract:
Before awarding waivers from core tenets of the No Child Left Behind Act to 11 states, the U.S. Department of Education ordered changes to address a significant weakness in most states' proposals: how they would hold schools accountable for groups of students deemed academically at risk, particularly those in special education or learning English. The feedback from peer reviewers and the department, now available to the public, provides a road map for states hoping to win waivers in later rounds, and a warning that the department's promise of flexibility is not unlimited. Of the 11 applications submitted in November as part of the first round of judging, seven received full approval Feb. 9, and three won conditional approval, pending additional legislative or policy changes. New Mexico's application, considered the weakest by the department, was approved Feb. 15. At least 20 states are expected to apply for waivers by the next deadline, Feb. 28. A third deadline has been set for Sept. 6. States that need more time to develop their waiver proposals can ask the federal department for a one-year freeze in their annual achievement targets to keep the list of schools not making adequate yearly progress from growing. AYP is the law's key mechanism for tracking schools' performance. But even that temporary flexibility comes with strings: States must agree to adopt college- and career-readiness standards, provide student-growth data to reading and math teachers, and report achievement and graduation gaps for each NCLB subgroup. 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