Your search found 742 results.

Descriptors:
Foreign Countries; Predictor Variables; Educational Practices; Effect Size; Reading Achievement; State Standards; Longitudinal Studies; Elementary School Students; Comparative Analysis; Heterogeneous Grouping; Multigraded Classes; Nongraded Instructional Grouping; Educational Policy; Mixed Age Grouping

Abstract:
This longitudinal quantitative study compared literacy achievement of students from second through sixth grade based on two organizational systems: graded (traditional) and nongraded (multiage) classrooms. The California Standards Test (CST) scaled and proficiency scores for English-Language Arts (ELA) were used as the study's independent variable to measure student performance. A matched control was utilized in which nongraded students were compared with graded students based on gender, ethnicity, and date of birth. Data analysis included independent samples t-test, analysis of variance (ANOVA), and effect size. Results showed that nongraded students had a significant advantage over their graded counterparts in literacy achievement (p=0.000). Effect size for the matched group increased with length of exposure in the nongraded program from Cohen's d=0.49 to d=0.99. It is difficult to determine if significant outcomes were the result of classroom structure or instructional strategies used in the nongraded setting. However, a unique quality of this study involves the rare conditions and matched control design that allowed for variables to be controlled, which have yet to be simultaneously accounted for in multiage studies to date. Based on the results, this study suggested that nongraded education, by responding to the developmental nature of children in the classroom, may offer a viable alternative to the graded system. In nations such as Australia, New Zealand, Netherlands, Finland, and Canada with the highest literacy rates in the world, nongraded classrooms are common educational practice. [The dissertation citations contained here are published with the permission of ProQuest LLC. Further reproduction is prohibited without permission. Copies of dissertations may be obtained by Telephone (800) 1-800-521-0600. Web page: http://www.proquest.com/en-US/products/dissertations/individuals.shtml.] 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:
Secondary Schools; Public Schools; Full Time Equivalency; Elementary Secondary Education; Nongraded Instructional Grouping; School Districts; State Departments of Education; Enrollment; Surveys; Teacher Student Ratio; Statistical Analysis; Group Dynamics; Ethnicity; Racial Differences; Elementary Education; Secondary Education; Administrators; Teachers; Students; School Administration; Pupil Personnel Services

Abstract:
This report presents findings on the numbers of public school students and staff in the United States and other jurisdictions in school year 2009-10, using data from the State Nonfiscal Survey of Public Elementary/Secondary Education of the Common Core of Data (CCD) survey system. The CCD is an annual collection of data that are reported by state education agencies (SEAs) to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) through the U.S. Department of Education's ED"Facts" data collection system. Selected findings include: (1) Public elementary and secondary schools had 49.4 million students in membership in school year 2009-10 (table 1); (2) Summing across grades, there were 34.5 million students enrolled in prekindergarten through grade 8 and ungraded classes; there were 14.9 million students enrolled in grades 9-12 in the 2009-10 school year (derived from table 1); (3) When examining students for whom race/ethnicity was reported in the 2009-10 school year, 54 percent were White; 22 percent were Hispanic; 17 percent were Black; 5 percent were Asian/Pacific Islander; and 1 percent were American Indian/Alaska Native (table 2); (4) In school year 2009-10, public elementary and secondary schools and local education agencies employed a total of 6.4 million full-time-equivalent (FTE) staff (table 3); (5) Of the FTE staff in the 2009-10 school year, 51 percent were teachers; 15 percent were instructional aides, instructional coordinators and supervisors, guidance counselors/directors, or librarians; and 24 percent were student and other support staff. School or district administrators comprised 4 percent of staff, and administrative support staff comprised the remaining 7 percent (derived from table 3); (6) The student/teacher ratio in public schools in school year 2009-10 was 15.4 (i.e., there were about 15 students for every FTE teacher employed) (table 4). The ratio ranged from a high of 22.9 in Utah to a low of 10.6 in Vermont. The elementary student/teacher ratio was 19.1, while the secondary student/teacher ratio was 12.1; and (7) The category of other instructional and student support includes instructional aides, instructional coordinators and supervisors, librarians, library support, and student support services staff. In the 2009-10 school year, there were about 42.2 students for every instructional and student support staff member (table 4). Appendices include: (1) Methodology and Technical Notes; and (2) Common Core of Data Glossary. (Contains 4 tables and 4 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 (734K)

Descriptors:
Public Schools; School Districts; State Departments of Education; Data Collection; Enrollment; Elementary Secondary Education; Data; Ethnicity; Full Time Equivalency; Pacific Islanders; American Indians; Alaska Natives; Nongraded Instructional Grouping; Surveys; Teacher Student Ratio; Whites; White Students; African American Students; Hispanic American Students; Asian American Students; Tables (Data); Librarians; Public School Teachers; Elementary School Teachers; Secondary School Teachers

Abstract:
This report presents findings on the numbers of public school students and staff in the United States and other jurisdictions in school year 2008-09, using data from the State Nonfiscal Survey of Public Elementary/Secondary Education of the Common Core of Data (CCD) survey system. The CCD is an annual collection of data that are reported by state education agencies (SEAs) to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) through the U.S. Department of Education's ED"Facts" data collection system. Because the purpose of this report is to introduce new data through the presentation of tables containing descriptive information, only selected findings are presented. These findings have been chosen to demonstrate the range of information available when using the CCD rather than to discuss all of the observed differences, and they are not meant to emphasize any particular issue. Data in this report, taken from the State Nonfiscal Survey of Public Elementary/Secondary Education, may differ from data in other CCD reports based on data from the Local Education Agency Universe Survey and the Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey. Data were reported by all states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Bureau of Indian Education in the 2008-09 CCD collection through the ED"Facts" system; the Department of Defense dependents schools (overseas and domestic) and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands reported directly to the CCD. American Samoa and Guam did not report data for the 2008-09 school year. The State Nonfiscal Survey of Public Elementary/Secondary Education presents counts of students by grade and by grade and race/ethnicity. The survey also presents counts of full-time-equivalent (FTE) teachers, aides, support staff, and administrators in public schools and school districts. SEAs participate in the CCD voluntarily, following standard definitions for the data items they report. In some cases, SEAs may be unable to report a data item, or may not be able to report a data item in exact accordance with a CCD definition. When states were unable to report key data items, values for these items were collected from alternate sources, imputed, or adjusted. Appendices include: (1) Methodology and Technical Notes; and (2) Common Core of Data Glossary. (Contains 4 tables and 4 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 (974K)

Descriptors:
Ethnicity; Public Schools; Intervention; Full Time Equivalency; Elementary Secondary Education; Pacific Islanders; American Indians; Alaska Natives; Nongraded Instructional Grouping; Enrollment; Surveys; State Departments of Education; Teacher Student Ratio; Group Membership; Whites; Hispanic Americans; Asian Americans; Supervisors; Librarians; Statistics

Abstract:
This First Look presents national and state level data on student enrollment by grade and by race/ethnicity within grade, the numbers of teachers and other education staff, and several student/staff ratios for the 2007-08 school year. It uses data from the State Nonfiscal Survey of Public Elementary/Secondary Education of the Common Core of Data (CCD) survey system. The CCD is an annual collection of data that are reported by state education agencies to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) through the U.S. Department of Education's EDFacts data collection system. Among the findings were that public elementary and secondary schools had 49.3 million students in membership in school year 2007-08. This was a decrease of less than 0.1 percent from student membership in school year 2006-07. Summing across grades, 34.3 million students were enrolled in pre-kindergarten through grade 8 and ungraded classes; 15.0 million students were enrolled in grades 9-12 in the 2007-08 school year. When examining students for whom race/ethnicity was reported in the 2007-08 school year, 55.8 percent were White, non-Hispanic; 21.1 percent were Hispanic; 17.0 percent were Black, non-Hispanic; 4.8 percent were Asian/Pacific Islander; and 1.2 percent were American Indian/Alaska Native (table 2). The percentage of students who were White, non-Hispanic decreased from 56.5 percent for White, non-Hispanic students in school year 2006-07. In school year 2007-08, public elementary and secondary schools and local education agencies employed a total of 6.2 million FTE staff. This was an increase of less than 1 percent from the number of FTE staff employed in school year 2006-07. Of the FTE staff in the 2007-08 school year, 51.1 percent were teachers, 15.3 percent were instructional aides, instructional coordinators and supervisors, guidance counselors, or librarians, and 23.1 percent were student and other support staff. About 3.5 percent were school or district administrators and 7.0 percent were administrative support staff. The student/teacher ratio in public schools in school year 2007-08 was 15.5 (i.e., there were about 16 students for every FTE teacher employed). The ratio ranged from a high of 23.7 in Utah to a low of 10.7 in Vermont. The elementary student/teacher ratio was 20.1, while the secondary student/teacher ratio was 11.9. The category of other instructional and student support includes instructional aides, instructional coordinators and supervisors, librarians, library support, and student support services staff. In the 2007-08 school year, there were about 43 students for every instructional and student support staff member. Appended to this report is (1) Methodology and Technical Notes; and (2) Common Core of Data Glossary. (Contains 4 tables and related data files. 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 (954K)

Descriptors:
Reading Comprehension; Private Schools; Phonemics; Literacy; Reading Instruction; Decoding (Reading); Phoneme Grapheme Correspondence; Reading Difficulties; Phonics; Reading Achievement; Reading Improvement; Child Development; Retention (Psychology); Reading Programs; Word Recognition; Nongraded Instructional Grouping; Longitudinal Studies

Abstract:
First, second, and third graders (N = 102) who had completed from 1 to 3 years of literacy instruction in other schools and had experienced failure entered a private school for struggling readers and received instruction in either of 2 types of systematic phonics programs over a 4-year period. One group received a keyword analogy method (KEY) that taught them to decode words by analogy to 120 keywords. The other group received KEY enriched with instruction in grapho-phonemic analysis (KEY-PLUS). Results showed that students receiving KEY-PLUS read and spelled words significantly better during the first 2 years of instruction than students receiving the KEY method. The same differences remained evident, although not significant, during Years 3 and 4. The programs did not differentially improve reading comprehension. Some effects of IQ were found. Results are consistent with developmental theories indicating the foundational importance of grapho-phonemic analysis for retaining written words in memory to facilitate word reading and spelling. (Contains 4 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:
Evidence; Classroom Techniques; Ability Grouping; Heterogeneous Grouping; Educational Strategies; Grouping (Instructional Purposes); Gifted; Cluster Grouping; Small Group Instruction; Peer Teaching; Learning Strategies; Flexible Progression; Nongraded Instructional Grouping; Performance Factors; Educational Research; Student Needs

Abstract:
Today's classrooms increasingly challenge teachers to address a diverse range of backgrounds, abilities, and learning needs. As teachers rise to the challenge, grouping can be a valuable instructional tool to address varying ability levels and learning needs within the classroom. At present, there is a good deal of support in the literature for heterogeneous grouping, in part as an effort to maintain high standards regardless of ability. However, as teachers know well, students enter the classroom at different levels across content areas and need varying forms of instruction to appropriately challenge them. Flexible grouping strategies can assist all teachers in meeting the needs of the students in the classroom. The goal of this "Focus On" is to move beyond a discussion of ability grouping and tracking by exploring the multitude of grouping strategies that teachers can use in their classrooms. The authors examine the various grouping patterns, summarizing the research-based evidence for each; address implementation questions, such as classroom management; and discuss the use of flexible grouping and adjustments to curriculum as necessary components. (Contains 77 resources and 5 web resources.) 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:
Young Children; Educational Change; Nongraded Instructional Grouping; Program Implementation; Models; Public Policy; Program Effectiveness; Teacher Attitudes; Primary Education; Teaching Methods

Abstract:
This article illustrates the implementation of a school reform policy for educating young children in one south eastern state in the US, a reform known as the non-graded primary program. The reform is examined through the lens of Sabatier and Mazmanian's [(1981). "The implementation of public policy: A framework for analysis." In D. A. Mazmanian, & P. A. Sabatier (Eds.), "Effective policy implementation" (pp. 3-36). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books] framework for policy implementation and Hashweh's [(2003). "Teacher accommodative change." "Teaching and Teacher Education," 19, 421-434] model of accommodative change which proposes to explain how individual teachers change their practices. The article features four related studies of teacher change and the attitudes of teachers, administrators, and community members. The community, politics, and media had an impact on the sustainability of the change, and subsequently, after 10 years, many teachers had reverted to old practices. Teachers who made the most progressive changes were those whose beliefs were philosophically aligned with the theory of the policy, had excellent and continued professional development, and had supportive leadership. 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:
Nongraded Instructional Grouping; State Departments of Education; Secondary Education; Public Education; Expenditures; Public Schools; Elementary Education

Abstract:
This report presents current expenditures for public elementary and secondary education for school year 2003-04 (or fiscal year 2004). This data is from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) Common Core of Data (CCD), National Public Education Financial Survey (NPEFS) and School District Finance Survey (F-33). The data for these collections were reported to NCES by state education agencies and represent current expenditures for public education, grades prekindergarten, kindergarten, 1 through 12, and ungraded classes. The fiscal year began on July 1, 2003 and ended on June 30, 2004 for most states. The fiscal year for Alabama ran from October 1, 2003 through September 30, 2004, and the fiscal year for Nebraska and Texas ran from September 1, 2003 through August 31, 2004. These data are not adjusted to conform to a uniform fiscal year. This report presents a different breakout of current expenditures than that in previous E.D. TAB reports by NCES. This report is also the first time that data from the state-level NPEFS and district-level F-33 surveys appear in the same NCES report. The NPEFS data include public education expenditures for regular education, special education, and vocational education programs, as well as all charter schools (if they reported data to the state education agency). The following are appended: (1) Technical Notes; and (2) Definitions. (Contains 4 tables and 3 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 (133K)

Descriptors:
Disabilities; Educational Assessment; Elementary Secondary Education; Inclusive Schools; National Surveys; Nongraded Instructional Grouping; School Districts; Student Participation

Abstract:
This paper summarizes results of a survey conducted to learn how school districts include students in ungraded or multi-grade classes or programs in state and district large-scale assessments. The survey was responded to by 72 special education directors, assistant superintendents, and supervisors in at least 50 large urban school districts. Major findings include: (1) most respondents indicate that they had some students with disabilities enrolled in ungraded classes and programs; (2) students with severe and/or low incidence disabilities or those outside the K-12 system are most likely to be assigned to multi-age/multi-grade classrooms; (3) most students in multi-age/multi-grade classrooms participate in state and district assessments and accountability systems; (4) a small number of respondents indicated that students with disabilities in multi-age/multi-grade classes do not participate in such assessments; (5) respondents indicated that students with disabilities may be assigned to a testing grade based on either age, instructional level, or individualized education program goal; (6) fewer than half of respondents stated that their districts report the scores of students with disabilities in multi-age/multi-grade classes with those of their same age peers; and (7) scores of students with disabilities in multi-age/multi-grade classes are frequently reported in a separate category. Results support the need for clearer guidelines for reporting students' scores and including them in the accountability system as intended by the No Child Left Behind Act. (DB) 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 (306K)

Descriptors:
Elementary Secondary Education; Mixed Age Grouping; Multigraded Classes; Nongraded Instructional Grouping

Abstract:
The number of multiage educational programs in the United States is relatively small, though they are very popular in many other countries. This paper presents arguments in favor of multiage groupings (e.g., student-teacher continuity, alternatives for special needs students, and viable alternatives to retention), offering advice from the classroom on such topics as planning and preparation, supportive administration, and alternative assessments. (SM) 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